JESUS' IDEA 



FORDYCE HUBBARD ARGO 



LIBRARY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 




Class JELS2j1__ 
Book__ T _Aj? . 



CCBRIGHT DEPasjE 



JESUS' IDEA 

A Study of the Real "Jesus 



BY 



FORDYCE HUBBARD ARGO, B.D. 

Rector of the Memorial Church of The Holy 
Nativity, Rockledge, Pa. 




^igAiPv^ygjjV 



BOSTON: RICHARD G. BADGER 

TORONTO: THE COPP CLARK CO., LIMITED 



Copyright, 1916, by Fordyce H. Argo 



All Rights Reserved 






•/& 



JAN" 19 1917 



Made in the United States of Americ 



The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A*, 
©CI.A455248 



IP 

1 

THIS STUDY IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED 

TO THREE NOBLE WOMEN: 
d 

THE MOTHER WHO GAVE ME LIFE; THE STEPMOTHER 
WHO FIRST TAUGHT ME TO LOVE AND ADMIRE JESUS OF 
NAZARETH ; THE WIFE, MY FAITHFUL COMPANION AND 
HELPMEET IN MAKING KNOWN JESUS AND HIS IDEA 
AMONG MEN. 



"It is the people that make the nation great or vile in the 
sight of the universe. Shall you nourish them, then, on the 
garbage of ribald feebleness, or on the pure, strong meats of 
the mind? As you feed them, so will be their substance and 
sinew ; as you nourish them, so will be the fruit that they bear." 

OuiDA. 

"But, after all, the power of any religion is to be found in 
its ideas and in the personality of its founder. Men will return 
to these as to a living fountain, which may have been choked 
for centuries with sand and drift-wood. Clearing away the 
rubbish they see again the living water. Drinking of it, they 
will rejoice all the more when the full river of the water of 
life — sufficient to satisfy the thirst of all lands — breaks upon 
their astonished vision." 

G. M. Grant. 

"Man is either a free being, with an intelligent Deity as 
his counterpart, or else he and his fellows are a mere procession 
of marionettes, which strut, or jig, or laugh, or groan, or caper, 
according as their wires are pulled by forces admittedly less 
intelligent than themselves." 

W. H. Mallock. 



PREFACE 

The attention of thoughtful minds is riveted to-day upon 
Jesus of Nazareth as never before. While the world at large, 
and even the Christian World, is witnessing an ever-increasing 
questioning and disregard of apparently outworn religious sys- 
tems, both doctrinal and ecclesiastical, the minds and hearts of 
men are turning with ever-freshening interest and homage to 
the Galilean Peasant. One of the most singular and salient 
phenomena of the day, indeed, is the fearless challenge to which 
the Faith of Christendom and the Authority of the Christian 
Church is being subjected. Men are asking whether the ac- 
cepted faith can be justified, and whether the church is repre- 
sentative or misrepresentative of Jesus. The question is usually 
charged with tremendous seriousness, and men are more and 
more seeking to understand the source of both faith and church. 
What is Jesus' real relationship to these? What is the idea 
back of these phenomena ? Can Jesus be directly and intimately 
associated with them, or is the relationship unreal and far 
removed? Such are the questionings. Current religious litera- 
ture witnesses abundantly to this fact. In consequence Jesus 
is finding many and able interpreters. What was Jesus Idea? 
then becomes a matter of paramount importance. Yet, so far 
as the writer knows, there have been but slight attempts to treat 
systematically and popularly of "Jesus' Idea." That this is an 
important subject few will deny. Many, indeed, are prepared 
to admit that it is the most important subject in connection with 
Christianity. The writer, sharing this feeling and attracted 
by the importance and interest of this subject, has sought in 
the following pages to disclose "Jesus' Idea" as it is expressed 
and embodied in the teaching and acts of the Master recorded 
in the Four Gospels. Further, the aim has been to present the 
Idea of Jesus and its development in such a way that even the 
casual and comparatively non-theological reader may under- 
stand. This purpose will explain the ample quotations from 



6 Jesus 7 Idea 

the Bible, and the endeavor to compress much information with- 
in a small compass. 1 

Attempts of this character, unless the writer is grievously 
mistaken, are ever becoming more necessary in an age of analyt- 
ical rather than synthetical criticism; in an age when men are 
being fed frequently upon the chaff of critical studies rather 
than upon the wheat of Christianity. In fact, amidst the intri- 
cate maze of interesting detail which now holds the attention 
of Biblical students and which inclines the mind even of the 
average person more easily to negation than to affirmation, men 
are likely to forget what essential Christianity is. A temporary 
paralysis has indeed already resulted to true Christian faith and 
practice. That Biblical Criticism should contribute to this re- 
sult is due in part, we believe, to the fact that there has not been 
the careful, consistent, and persistent setting forth on the part 
of the Christian Church, of the basic truth of Christianity, as 
it is disclosed in Jesus' Idea. Emphasis is usually placed upon 
the subordinate details in the Christian View of God and of the 
World, and not upon the View itself. Had the emphasis been 
placed upon the View itself, so august, convincing, and self-suffi- 
cient is that View, that much of the evil which we deplore 
would have been avoided. Hence there is a great need of posi- 
tive and definite teaching, for Christianity, as it is interpreted 
by Jesus, is its own best proof. 

The writer, however, does not share the fear of many that 
substantial loss will ensue to Christianity as the result of the 
modern scientific spirit of inquiry, of Biblical Criticism, of the 
Study of Comparative Religion, and of the present general 
method of Historical Investigation. He looks for substantial 
gain, rather than loss. Yet there will be profound modifica- 
tion of earlier opinion about many subjects; especially marked 
will be the change produced in the conception of faith, and of 
the claims and nature of the Christian Church. This, indeed, 
is already noticeable in the life of our time. While the various 
denominations are endeavoring usually to hold fast to the old, 
sometimes opposing resolutely the new, and occasionally ex- 

J The Biblical quotations are usually taken from the Authorized 
Version, in spite of its inaccuracies and inadequacy, because it is 
the version generally used by the majority of English-speaking 
Christians, however we may deplore the fact. 



Preface 7 

hibiting a decidedly reactionary tendency, there is everywhere a 
gradual but increasing undermining of the old. Thoughtful 
minds outside the Church, and thousands of nominal adherents 
of the Church, are ceasing to care greatly for denominational 
systems and doctrinal formularies. They do not war upon 
them, but treat them with studied indifference, easy-going tol- 
erance, or sometimes with open contempt. They may remain 
within the lines of their former allegiance, but the spirit of 
their allegiance is changing. They are quietly emphasizing the 
commandments of God, while the traditions of men are lapsing 
into "innocuous desuetude." "Modernism," indeed, is every- 
where apparent, and is steadily growing in influence. It is, in 
fact, becoming all-pervasive. One effect of this spirit, we be- 
lieve, will be the fuller appreciation of Jesus and His Idea. 

In endeavoring to ascertain "Jesus' Idea," use has been 
made of the Four Gospels. Christ Himself left no writings. 
We have simply reports of His words; indeed, speaking ex- 
actly, we have only translations of reports of His teaching. 
Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and not in Greek. St. Mat- 
thew, St. Mark, and St. Luke alike, for the most part, trans- 
late into Greek a report of what Christ said. Just how ac- 
curately they translated the report, and how accurately the 
first-hand report represented the teaching of Jesus are interest- 
ing questions. That they tell us truly what they believe Christ 
taught cannot be denied; the writings themselves bear the in- 
trinsic stamp of truthfulness. Yet, after all, reports are often 
inaccurate, and translations of reports may sometimes be doubly 
misleading. This fact would seem to throw all of Christ's 
teaching into the realm of conjecture. This, however, is not to 
be believed. The trend and the essential substance of Jesus' 
teaching is evident enough from the substantial agreement of 
the various reporters ; and from the clear-cut, definite impression 
which they convey — and the very nature of the teaching, too, 
precludes the possibility of invention. Hence, we have no diffi- 
culty in determining approximately what Jesus taught. In 
using the Fourth Gospel, the writer believes that he is using 
the production of one who may have known Jesus intimately, 
and that the author was probably St. John, the Apostle. If 
St. John was not the author of the Gospel, it is at least the 
production of one who had meditated long and intimately upon 



8 Jesus' Idea 

the teaching of Jesus and had grown to appreciate its beauty 
and its power. Hence in this sense at least, this source is as 
authoritative for the teaching of Jesus as the Synoptic Gospels. 
The writer, indeed, displays a more marked spiritual insight 
than the Synoptists, and this seemingly guarantees a fairer and 
fuller appreciation of the mind of Christ. If he does not report 
the form of Jesus' teaching, he at least gives us insight into its 
content. 

It is a significant fact of our day that the Gospels are only 
now coming into their own. This may seem very strange, but 
it is undeniably true. With the Reformation, the Bible may 
be said to have come into its own; especially the Pauline writ- 
ings. Unfortunately, the exigency of the situation necessitated 
a certain obscuration of the Gospels and their message at that 
time. This, our age is happily ending, and the effect upon the 
life and the thought of the world will be, we believe, as marked 
and lasting ultimately as that of the earlier Reformation; for 
"Jesus' Idea" will be seen to be the very essence of Christianity, 
and this will compel a thorough-going readjustment along many 
lines — intellectual, ecclesiastical, social, industrial and economic. 

In conclusion, the writer would acknowledge his great ob- 
ligation to the two treasuries of scholarly opinion and research : 
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopedia Bib- 
lica, and especially to the articles, "The Kingdom of God," by 
the late Dr. Orr; "Jesus Christ," by Dr. Sanday, and "The 
Sermon on the Mount," by Dr. Votaw, in the former work. 
"The Theology of the New Testament," by the late Professor 
Stevens, and "The Kingdom of God," by the late Professor 
Bruce, have also proven useful. While various authorities have 
been drawn upon in the course of the work, and no claim of 
originality is made, the writer trusts that he has made, at 
least, some contribution to a better understanding of the spirit 
and the aim of Jesus. The subject matter of the volume, in 
fact, was presented from time to time in extemporaneous ser- 
mons and addresses to a Christian congregation, where it found 
appreciative listeners. Because of this, the volume was written, 
and it is now presented, to the public in the hope that it may 
prove useful and suggestive. The writer's hearty thanks are 
due to Miss Mary C. Haley, who kindly prepared the manu- 
script for the press. Fordyce Hubbard Argo. 

The Rectory, Rockledge, Pa. 

October i, 191 6. 





CONTENTS 




CHAPTER 


PAGE 


I. 


The Kingdom of God . 


13 


II. 


The Origin and Pre-Christian Develop- 






ment of the Idea 


25 


III. 


The Development of the Idea . 


39 


IV. 


The Night of Legalism 


47 


V. 


Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 


6o 


VI. 


The Subjects of the Kingdom . 


78 


VII. 


The Kingdom's Method of Development 


102 


VIIL 


The World's Reception of the Kingdom 


I09 


IX. 


The Value of the Kingdom 


125 


X. 


The Alloy of the Kingdom 


I40 


XI. 


The Extent of the Kingdom 


. 150 


XII. 


The Time of the Kingdom . 


. 167 


XIII. 


The Church and the Kingdom 


. I8l 


XIV. 


The Kingdom and the Supernatural 


. 204 


XV. 


The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 


. 226 




Appendix 


• 245 



JESUS' IDEA 



JESUS' IDEA 



CHAPTER I 



THE KINGDOM OF GOD 



The measure of a man's dissatisfaction with himself is the 
measure of the man. A nation's self-dissatisfaction is the 
prophecy of what it may become. Our aspirations and ambi- 
tions are, as a rule, indicative of our capabilities. 

Viewing life as disinterestedly as one can, there is great 
difficulty in understanding the problem of the world and of 
human existence. There is so much darkness mingled with 
the light, falsehood with truth, sin with goodness, sorrow with 
happiness, that any rational solution of the problem seems un- 
likely, if not impossible. 

One thing, however, attracts and rivets the attention: — 
Men, individually and collectively, are not satisfied, and have 
never been satisfied with themselves or their condition. There 
has been, to a greater or less extent, dissatisfaction with things 
as they are ; it is this divine discontent, indeed, that has always 
turned the wheels of progress. Rightly does the poet sing: 

"Progress, man's distinctive mark alone, 
Not God's, and not the beasts : God is, they are ; 
Man partly is, and wholly hopes to be." 

"Progress is 

The Law of Life : Man is not Man as yet." 

This dissatisfaction with himself affects, very noticeably, 
man's attitude toward the material and the intellectual world 
of his time; unfortunately, this spirit of discontent is not so 
manifest in the religious world. As to the former, there is 

13 



14 Jesus' Idea 

ever and always a restlessness indicative of great results. Men 
palpably think life "out of joint," and seek to remedy its ills 
by new triumphs over material resources; or they fancy that 
progress along intellectual lines, the dispelling of ignorance, the 
enlightening of the human mind, and the attendant results in 
better laws, better institutions, and a more righteous and equita- 
ble government, will prove the desired and needed remedy. 
Thus we achieve splendid and ever-increasing results along these 
lines, which are to-day, however, but weakly and poorly 
prophetic of those surpassing achievements which the future 
now conceals. 

There are those, however, who, while they agree with 
their brethren in an ardent desire for better conditions, find 
that neither complete mastery over the material world, nor 
exhaustive triumphs in the intellectual realm, will prove the 
elixir of life. In their view, the wound of humanity lies deeper 
than matter or mind. Man, they declare, is more than body 
or matter, more than intellect or mind. Man is also spiritual 
and religious; character is his greatest endowment. And just 
here lies their dissatisfaction. Man is not, spiritually and re- 
ligiously, what he ought to be. In the view of this class of 
malcontents, man is vitally affected in the spiritual part of his 
nature; therefore, the patent need of the world and of the in- 
dividual, is character. "Give us," they say, "all possible ma- 
terial and intellectual progress; but above all, and crowning 
all, give us greater progress toward God!" A closer relation- 
ship to the Deity is demanded; new triumphs are craved here. 
And so, a boundless dream — albeit called by some, iridescent — 
haunts their thoughts: they have a vision of the Kingdom of 
God. A Kingdom of God they desire, in which God's law 
shall be understood and known of all men, and in which God's 
will shall prevail, and God's will, not the will of man, be 
done. 

This was the vision of Jesus of Nazareth; just here Jesus 
had His starting point. He was the chief exponent of the 
Kingdom of God, — the leader of those who would remedy the 
individual and the social ills of the world by the redemption 
of man's moral nature. Speaking in a general way, those who 
seek the betterment of human conditions may be classified as 
materialistic reformers, intellectual reformers, and spiritual re- 



The Kingdom of God 15 

formers; that is, in each instance, the reformer places the em- 
phasis upon the material, or the intellectual, or the spiritual 
things of life. Usually men are controlled in their efforts at 
reform by one of these principles, often to the exclusion, or sad 
neglect, of the others. Hence, their efforts are unsuccessful, 
and often vapid and inane, because partial and divisive, in that 
they deal with man, not as man, but as body, or intellect, or 
spirit. Man is, however, a living soul, and the strength of 
Christianity, so far as man is concerned, lies in the fact that 
Jesus Christ in His attempt at reform, took into account man's 
three-fold nature — body, mind, and spirit — and made adequate 
provision therefor. While the foundation of His reformation 
lay in the redemption of man's moral nature, Jesus was in no 
way deaf to the appeal either of the body or the mind, as His 
numerous miracles, and His strenuous endeavors to instruct, 
amply attest. His vision, as we have said, was of the Kingdom 
of God; a Kingdom large enough to include all the needs of 
man while based upon man's moral needs. 1 

The unique position held by Jesus of Nazareth in the his- 
tory of the world for well-nigh two thousand years, is ad- 
mitted by all; nor is it going beyond the bounds of truth to say 
that, great as has been the homage paid to the Carpenter of 
Nazareth in the past, greater is the reverence felt toward Him 
in the present; and more intelligent and enduring is the homage 
paid, because it is founded upon a more just appreciation of 
His worth as a man, and not merely upon an easy and unques- 
tioning acceptance of Him as the supernatural Son of God. 

1 The reader of the Synoptic Gospels does not proceed far before 
he is convinced that Jesus' remedy for the ills of the world was 
"the Kingdom of God." He may be at a loss to know just what 
Jesus meant by the expression — "Kingdom of God" — which was so 
often upon His lips; but he is fully aware that Jesus laid great 
stress upon the importance of the Kingdom to the world. For 
example, he is at once confronted by so remarkable an announce- 
ment as this : "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteous- 
ness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). 
This absolute direction is given to mankind by Jesus without any 
qualification whatsoever. If one reads further, he finds Jesus always 
placing great emphasis upon the Kingdom ; an emphasis which soon, 
warrants the belief that, in the view of the Master, the great need 
of the world and of man is the Kingdom of God. However, more 
of this anon. See Appendix A, "The Theme of Jesus' Preaching." 



1 6 Jesus* Idea 

Remarkable testimony to the innate grandeur of the Christ 
can be adduced from many sources : orthodoxy and heterodoxy, 
believer and unbeliever, radical and conservative, Jew and 
Christian alike, unite in chanting the praises and acknowledg- 
ing the unique greatness of Him who is, more and more, being 
crowned King of Men. Mr. Lecky, in his "History of Euro- 
pean Morals," does not pay too high encomium to the Founder 
of Christianity, when he remarks: "It was reserved for Chris- 
tianity to present to the world an ideal character, which, 
through all the changes of eighteen centuries has filled the hearts 
of men with an impassioned love and has shown itself capable 
of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, conditions; has 
not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the highest in- 
centive to its practice." The testimony of a noted Rabbi also 
is no less emphatic in praise of Jesus than the customary Chris- 
tian eulogy. Delivering an address before the Epworth League 
of St. James' Methodist Church, Chicago, Dr. Emil G. Hirsch 
declared: "If Jesus Christ should return to the earth to-mor- 
row, He would be welcomed in every Jewish synagogue in the 
land, and every Jew would say with David, 'Lift up your 
heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up ye everlasting doors, and 
the King of Glory shall come in.' " While this very cordial 
welcome may well be doubted in view of the singularly inhos- 
pitable reception extended centuries ago, the purport of the 
declaration is evident, in that it voices the admiration felt by 
many Jews for the Christ life and the Christ character. 

Nor can we forbear to quote here the very eloquent tribute 
of Monsieur Renan, in the closing paragraph of his Vie de 
Jesus: "As for us, eternal children, condemned to weakness, 
we who labor without harvesting, and shall never see the fruit 
of what we have sown, let us bow before these demi-gods. They 
knew what we do not know : to create, to affirm, to act. Shall 
originality be born anew, or shall the world henceforth be con- 
tent to follow the paths opened by the bold creators of the 
ancient ages? We know not. But whatever may be the sur- 
prises of the future, Jesus will never be surpassed. His worship 
will grow young without ceasing; His legend will call forth 
tears without end; His sufferings will melt the noblest hearts; 
all ages will proclaim that among the sons of men there is 
none born greater than Jesus." 



The Kingdom of God 17 

Similar testimony, from most dissimilar sources, might be 
multiplied at will; but, not to weary the reader, we will pass 
to the point in view: The growing conviction of our age that 
the truest and best appreciation of Jesus of Nazareth is gained 
along the line of a study of the Man Himself, and His teach- 
ings and acts; and not primarily from a study of what others 
have taught about Him. "He stood the more a King when 
bared to man." His message to the world, indeed, is best heard 
from His own lips; and His ideas are best gained by a close 
study of His own words as we find them reported by his faith- 
ful followers. We cannot but feel that the world has suf- 
fered an immeasurable loss, in that the teaching of the Master 
has been somewhat obscured by the teaching of the Church 
about the Master. Against the teaching of the Church we have 
no word to utter ; at the same time, what is eternally and logic- 
ally and chronologically of chiefest importance, is the Teach- 
ing of Jesus Himself. 

We have indicated briefly that the engrossing theme of Jesus 
was the Kingdom of God, and that this seemed to the Pre- 
eminent Man of the human race, the world's great need. We 
think, therefore, that if this solution of the evils of human life 
was offered by Him whom millions of men acknowledge to be 
the Son of God, and whom all acknowledge to be the ideal 
man, it becomes the duty, and it is the privilege of every 
thoughtful mind to inquire, "What is meant by 'The Kingdom 
of God'? What is this Kingdom which men are to seek?" 
For the conviction, so aptly expressed by Richard Watson 
Gilder, is deepening universally and steadily: 

"If Jesus Christ is a man, 

And only a man, I say 

That of all mankind I cleave to Him, 

And to Him will I cleave alway. 

If Jesus Christ is a God, 

And the only God, I swear 
. I will follow Him through Heaven and Hell, 

The earth, the sea, and the air." 

It is, therefore, our purpose to consider the Kingdom of God 
in its essential characteristics, as it is revealed in the Teaching 
of Jesus. Preparatory, however, to the more detailed investiga- 
tion, we will consider: 



1 8 Jesus' Idea 

1. The meaning of the phrase, "The Kingdom of God" 
or "The Kingdom of Heaven." 

2. The origin and pre-Christian development of the idea 
which the phrase embodies. 

3. The significance attached to the expression when used 
by Jesus. 

Now first let us consider the phrase itself and its meaning. 1 
The expressions, "The Kingdom of God" and "The King- 
dom of Heaven," are apparently unequivocal and definite. This 
definiteness, however, soon begins to recede when one endeavors 
to define the meaning of the phrase. What is the significance ? 
Can the reader give any ready answer? And yet this expres- 
sion stands prominently on many pages of the New Testament, 
and is written large on almost every page of the Synoptic Gos- 
pels. Surely we have a right to expect that those who would 
read their Bible intelligently, should determine at the earliest 
possible moment the meaning of an expression which is cer- 
tainly among the most important in the Sacred Book, and which 
furnishes the key without which very many passages are most 
effectually sealed. 

Now, as to the significance of the phrase, first let us con- 
sider the word "Kingdom." We are inclined to believe that 
we know the force of this word: it seems simple and easily 
intelligible, but a little reflection proves the word ambiguous. 
In our common speech, "kingdom" is used in different senses. 
For instance, we speak of the Kingdom of England, and a mo- 
ment or two later perhaps, of the Vegetable or the Mineral 
Kingdom. Is the sense of the word the same in both expres- 
sions? Manifestly, it is not; and we recognize the difference 
at once. The word may be used, indeed, to define the territory 
or the country that is subject to a king; when it is used in this 
sense, the foreign possessions of the country are not commonly 
included in the idea. We speak, for instance, of the Kingdom 
of England without including Canada or Australia. So in this 
way the word has a definite, concrete, territorial sense: it is 
synonymous with "realm." But there is another sense almost 
as popular as this territorial one, in which the word is used. 
We refer to the inhabitants of a country, or to the popula- 

1 See Appendix B, "The Phrases, 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 
'Kingdom of God.' " 



The Kingdom of God 19 

tion subject to a king, as the "Kingdom." We say that the 
kingdom was disturbed, or that the entire kingdom was alarmed. 
Here^ of course, the population of the country is referred to, and 
here "kingdom" is identical with the subjects of the realm. But 
there is another interesting sense to be considered. This word 
is also used in a more indefinite and abstract sense; at times it 
possesses a larger, wider, and apparently a more intangible 
meaning. For intance, men speak of the Animal, the Vegetable 
and the Mineral Kingdoms; by these they mean those divisions 
or spheres in which a certain law prevails and holds sway; as 
in the Animal Kingdom, the law of sentient life. Or again, in 
referring to the Kingdom of George V, we may mean, not 
merely the limited territorial Kingdom of England, but rather, 
wherever the authority of the King is acknowledged and obeyed, 
whether in Canada, Australia, India, or the distant Islands of 
the Sea. Here "kingdom" is synonymous with, and equivalent 
to "sovereignty" or "rule." Thus we find that we have quite 
different, yet not wholly unrelated, senses of the word "king- 
dom" in our English tongue. It becomes therefore, a question 
of prime importance to determine which of these interpreta- 
tions shall be applied to the Biblical expression — "The King- 
dom of God." Are we to interpret the watchword of Jesus in 
terms of the abstract or of the concrete? Is it to be under- 
stood of a definite organization, an ecclesiastical "realm," or 
shall we understand it as applying to the people, or persons, 
who are subject to Heaven or to God? Or, lastly, Is it to be 
understood of that division, sphere or domain — whatever and 
wherever it may be — in which the authority of God and the 
Law of Heaven prevail and are supreme? Is it a rule or sov- 
ereignty? Surely these are important and imperative ques- 
tions ; they ought to be answered by every intelligent Christian ; 
and they are of the gravest importance to every minister of 
Christ, who would understand his Master's aim and teaching. 
In the Talmud, and in later Jewish literature, the expres- 
sion is more commonly used in the latter sense — that of sov- 
ereignty or "rule." The Old Testament itself, no less than 
subsequent Jewish literature, bears testimony to this usage, 
as we shall find later on. Yet it would be very unwise in our 
interpretation of "The Kingdom of God," to reject wholly any 
of the senses or interpretations of the word "kingdom" which 



20 Jesus* Idea 

have been given above ; for in so doing, we would seriously cur- 
tail a term, which is at once most expressive and most elusive. 
Indeed, it ought to be borne in mind constantly that it is ex- 
tremely difficult to define adequately — i. e., in any succinct or 
concise way, — the meaning of this phrase : not because the sense 
is hazy, and the term inconclusive, and meaning nothing in real- 
ity, but because the expression is so pregnant with meaning. 
However, in defining "The Kingdom of God," usually one of 
the interpretations mentioned above is adopted, and often to the 
exclusion of all others, the most common, and apparently the 
simplest, being to identify the Kingdom of Heaven with the 
Christian Church. This too common and superficial view is 
the bane of much of our Christianity, and the effectual means 
by which many are deterred from gaining any true and adequate 
insight into the august conception of Jesus of Nazareth. Noth- 
ing has been more harmful throughout the centuries; nothing 
is more harmful to-day. While this interpretation should not 
be rigorously excluded from the possible and allowable inter- 
pretations of the phrase, it should be rigorously placed in, and 
be made to abide in, a secondary and subordinate position; for 
it teems with error. Yet withal there is one sense of the ex- 
pression which indicates its basic and fundamental idea; of this 
one must be the possessor and the ever-conscious possessor, if 
he would wend his way successfully and satisfactorily through 
the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. "The Kingdom of God" 
suggests and denotes the "sovereignty" or "rule" of God, or of 
Heaven. Whether this rule be over a realm, or a people, or an 
individual, is a secondary and a subsidiary matter. "The sov- 
ereignty of God" is the fundamental conception of the phrase: 
all else is, indeed, secondary. 

The most concise and the most explicit indication of the 
phrase's meaning is that given by Jesus Himself in the Lord's 
Prayer, in the words "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done 
in earth, as it is in heaven" (St. Matthew 6:10). Or again, 
the meaning of the expression may be gathered from Our Lord's 
emphatic declaration: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, 
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth 
the will of My Father which is in Heaven." The inherent and 
essentially inward and spiritual character of the Kingdom may 
also be seen from such a passage as St. Luke 17:20, 21. Jesus 



The Kingdom of God 21 

is replying to the Pharisees, who were inquiring anxiously as 
to the time when the Kingdom of God should come. His 
words are: "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
tion; neither shall they say, Lo here, lo there! for, behold, the 
Kingdom of God is within you." The words "within you" 
may also be translated "in the midst of you"; but whichever 
translation is accepted, the emphasis is placed upon the inward 
and spiritual aspect of the Kingdom. Many additional pas- 
sages might be cited in substantiation of our contention ; in fact, 
as the reader proceeds through these pages, numerous quota- 
tions from both the New Testament and the Old Testament 
will be met with, all of which will be found to bear upon this 
interpretation. 1 

Enough has now been said, however, to indicate that the 
essential thought of the phrase, "The Kingdom of God," is the 
sovereignty of God; or, if we choose to view it from its man- 
ward side, it is obedience to God's will. The phrase may be 
defined, therefore, as "the domain in which God's Holy Will 
is done in and among men." 

Valuable testimony to the validity of this interpretation is 
furnished by Professor Dalman in his "Words of Jesus," when 
he says, — "No doubt can be entertained that both in the Old 
Testament and in Jewish literature malekoth (kingdom), when 
applied to God, means always the 'kingly rule,' never the 
'kingdom' as if it were meant to suggest the territory gov- 
erned by Him. For the Old Testament see Psalms 103:19; 
145:11, 12, 13, cf. Obad. 21, Ps. 29:29. For the Jewish lit- 
erature, the instances to be cited later on. To-day, as in 
antiquity, an Oriental 'kingdom' is not a body politic in our 
sense, a people or land under some form of constitution, but 
merely a 'sovereignty' which embraces a particular territory. 
We shall be justified, therefore, in starting from this significa- 
tion of malekoth as employed by Jesus" (p. 94). Passages from 
later Jewish writings might be cited here, but, inasmuch as 
several of the most important of these will be quoted in a later 

1 The fundamental thought and idea of "The Kingdom of God" 
is clearly, if somewhat indirectly, indicated also in two of the most 
suggestive passages in the New Testament. In these, the poles of 
Jesus' thought are found to be the Kingdom of God and the King- 
dom of Satan (St. Luke 10:17, 18, 21, 22; 11:15, 17-22). 



22 Jesus' Idea 

chapter, they are not now brought before the reader; when 
adduced, they will be found to support the assertion of Pro- 
fessor Dalman. 

The significance of the descriptive phrase "of Heaven," 
or "of God," now remains to be considered: for the expression 
is not merely "the Kingdom," but the Kingdom which is "of 
God" or "of Heaven." 

The genitive denotes the origin and source, and also, we 
think, the character of the Kingdom. The idea is: In contra- 
distinction to the kingdoms "in" and "of" this world, this 
"kingdom" is to be "from" and "of" heaven. 1 

While the kingdoms of the world are of this sphere, the 
result of human effort and development, reared by men, and the 
product of their labor, it is not so with the Kingdom of God. 
The Kingdom of Heaven is not developed from below, it is 
introduced from above; born, not of earth, but of heaven; not 
the product of man's labor, but "of the creative activity of 
God." Yet it is profoundly true that men have their part in 
the upbuilding of the Kingdom, and that a most essential part; 
but, because the initiative lies with God, and the whole, in its 
conception and development, would prove abortive, without 
the ever-present care and supervision of Deity, it is rightly 
denominated "The Kingdom of God." 

Further, the Kingdom is "of Heaven" or "of God" not 

1 Many New Testament passages corroborate this idea and set 
forward this aspect of the Kingdom. The "Kingdom" is repre- 
sented as "coming" in St. MattheAv 6:10: "Thy Kingdom come"; 
as given to those who are worthy of it, thus emphasizing God's 
ownership of it : St. Matthew 21 143, "The Kingdom of God shall 
be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof"; the Kingdom is "received," St. Mark 10:15: "Whosoever 
shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not 
enter therein" ; it is "prepared" by God from the foundation of 
the world (St. Matthew 25:34); and it is "inherited" by men: 
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world"; mankind "enter" the 
Kingdom through compliance with God's demands: "Except your 
righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and 
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" 
(St. Matthew 5:20); finally, the Kingdom must be sought after: 
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (St. 
Matthew 6:33). These, and similar passages, are clearly confirma- 
tory of the heavenly source and origin of the Kingdom of God. 



The Kingdom of God 23 

only in its source, but also in its character. God and the World, 
Heaven and Earth, are often contrasted in the pages of the 
Sacred Scriptures; the terms, indeed, represent different princi- 
ples, widely separated, always opposed and waging an eternal 
warfare. The kingdoms of the earth, save as they have been 
leavened with spiritual principles, are the embodiment of 
"worldly" ideas; they have been formed, they are maintained, 
and their boundaries are extended through "worldly" princi- 
ples and methods. These kingdoms are the incarnation of 
man's conceptions and ambitions; they reveal man's character 
as divorced from God. Not so, however, is it with the King- 
dom of God. Unlike the kingdoms of the world, the Kingdom 
of God is founded, maintained and extended through heavenly 
principles and by Godly means; it is the embodiment of God's 
ideas, conceptions and ambitions; it reveals man's true char- 
acter and the possibilities inherent in human nature. The 
Kingdom of God is also governed by divine laws; not by laws 
of human enactment. Such, in brief, is the significance of the 
descriptive clause "of God" or "of Heaven." 

It is most noteworthy, however, that Jesus never defined the 
Kingdom of God; His method was not that of definition, but 
of suggestion, comparison, and illustration: He always told 
what the Kingdom of God was like. Jesus, in fact, was pecu- 
liarly and happily free from the theological license of affirma- 
tion. Why He failed to define the Kingdom of God is a fruit- 
ful source of conjecture. Perhaps the expression was already 
suffering from an excess of definition; perhaps He simply 
adopted the free Oriental and figurative manner of speech, 
or He may have sought to stimulate — not to satisfy — the minds 
of men ; or again — and this is the most probable reason for His 
wholly admirable self-restraint, — He well knew that to define 
the conception is to curtail, perhaps to seriously misrepresent it. 
The phrase itself, "The Kingdom of Heaven," in the magnitude 
of its suggested totality indicates the inability of the finite mind 
to fully comprehend an infinite conception. An infinite con- 
ception, indeed, defies finite definition; infinite realities defy 
human comprehension. For this cause, the method of the 
blaster was suggestive and fragmentary, not systematic and 
exhaustive. There is, indeed, an exquisite touch of pathos in 
the kindliness of Jesus, who, Himself, supremely the Master of 



24 Jesus' Idea 

the idea, yet accommodates His teaching to the limitations and 
the finiteness of man. An idea, so complex, so vast and so all- 
inclusive, forever hovers in a mist of elusiveness; we catch a 
glimpse now and again of the reality,— we reach for it, and 
lo, it is gone; we seek to define, and the illimitable conception 
baffles our most strenuous endeavors. The utmost that human- 
ity can do is to throw out words at the august object, in the 
hope that they may be measurably adequate; an approximation 
of the truth is all that we can hope for. 

We hesitate, then, to define the "Kingdom of God," but 
should the rash attempt be made, our approximate definition 
would be this: The Kingdom of God is the absolute sov- 
ereignty of the Universe, the absolute rule of the World and of 
each individual by the Will of the Omnipotent and Righteous 
God; exemplified and made possible to humanity in the Person 
of Jesus Christ; it is the full realization of the mind and char- 
acter of God. The great difficulty, however, encountered in 
any attempt to define the Kingdom of God, renders more im- 
perative the duty of determining what is the basic and funda- 
mental idea of the phrase. Hence, we learn that the expres- 
sion means, in the last analysis, a rule or sovereignty, having its 
source and seat of authority in God, and in character, illus- 
trating the principles which obtain and prevail in Heaven. 1 

It is now our privilege to inquire: What is the Origin and 
Development of the Idea expressed by the words, "The King- 
dom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven"? 

1 See Appendix C, "Various Definitions of The Kingdom." 



CHAPTER II 



THE ORIGIN AND PRE-CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA 

Of all the solutions of the problem of human existence, that 
offered in the Bible has seized most forcibly upon the minds 
and hearts of men. The Bible, indeed, offers the highest 
philosophy of life: it is the truest philosophy of history, and 
the noblest history of philosophy. 

The Bible, however, is an entire library in itself; and al- 
though it is the production of many ages, of many pens, and 
of many minds of varying degrees of intellectuality and spiritual 
insight, written for different peoples, called into being by mani- 
fold circumstances, and aimed to meet diverse needs and exi- 
gencies, there is a substantial unity underlying the whole. There 
is, as it were, a silken cord running throughout the entire litera- 
ture, binding together the various parts, and differentiating this 
from all other literature: that cord is The Kingdom of God. 
However the authors of the various books may treat their sub- 
ject, when their writings are analyzed, their theme is found to 
be "The Kingdom of Heaven." The careful historian, the far- 
seeing statesman, the ecstatic seer, the quiet philosopher, the 
powerful preacher, the sweet-spirited poet, the thoughtful 
scholar, the practical man of affairs — all contribute their share 
to the Sacred Literature, and vie with each other in setting forth 
the Kingdom of God. The Hebrews, in fact, were essentially 
a people of one idea, and their literature reflects their life. 

The Bible, indeed, is the history of the revelation, the evolu- 
tion and the realization of an idea — The Kingdom of God; a 
revelation not complete and final in its beginning, but gradual 
and progressive, ever adapted and accommodated to the recep- 
tivity of man, and following the law of development that is 
written everywhere in the Universe, "first the blade, then the 
ear, then the full corn in the ear." Let us trace this develop- 

25 



26 Jesus' Idea 

ment in bold, brief outline, with just enough attention to detail 
to mark the various steps in the progress and their significance. 

In introducing the problem of the world and of life, the 
Scriptures begin with the declaration: "In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis I :i). The writer 
also informs us of the satisfaction felt by the Deity with the 
work of His hands: "God saw everything that he had made, 
and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). At once, how- 
ever, the question arises — What is meant by the expression 
"very good"? What is the standard of comparison that is to 
determine the "goodness"? The world, or creation, was "very 
good," but "very good" as related to whom, or to what? Mani- 
festly, the standpoint of God is intended. That creation was 
"very good" means that, in its relation to God and to all other 
creatures, everything created was as it ought to be. This, in- 
deed, is the true standard of goodness in every age. There was 
a condition of perfect harmony between the Creator and the 
created. There was no antagonism, but perfect obedience; 
Creator and creature were at peace. On every side the mind 
of God was revealed; His laws were admitted and obeyed; 
God was King, the world of Creation was His Kingdom. 

This relation of God to the physical world is throughout 
the Old Testament emphasized by prophet and by psalmist. 
Psalm 47 :j reads : — "God is the king of all the earth." In the 
Psalms generally, and in many passages of the Old Testament, 
this Kingship of God is represented as extending over angels 
and men, the nations and kingdoms of the earth; in fact, this 
sovereignty is co-extensive with creation, even the forces of 
nature are regarded as His ministers, while all things serve 
Him (Isa. i; Chron. 29:11). 

But instantly the question arises: "Have not men rebelled 
against God; do they not oppose His will?" If so, how can 
God be their King, and the world of men constitute His King- 
dom? This question is a natural and a logical one, and while 
it is apparently unanswerable, it was both raised and answered 
of old. The true and adequate answer lies in Shakespeare's 
famous dictum: 



"There's a divinity that shapes our ends, 
Rough-hew them how we will." 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 27 

Indeed, this well-known and seemingly weighty objection to 
the Supremacy of God, as apparent in an early age as in this, 
did not cause the Biblical writers to minimize for an instant 
God's full and entire sovereignty over man. Again and again 
the Old Testament teaches God's providence over all, nations 
and individuals, heaven and earth alike. One of the most ex- 
plicit and interesting of the passages is Daniel 4:34, 35. Jere- 
miah, too, represents men as clay in the hands of God, who 
moulds them even as the potter moulds his clay. He tells us 
that if nations will not be moulded into vessels of honorable 
use in serving the divine ends, they will be moulded to other 
uses as vessels of dishonor. Again Psalm 76:10 declares that 
even the wrath of man is made to praise God, while the residue 
of wrath is restrained. 

Thus the Biblical conception is, that despite the opposition 
of nations and of individuals, God's providence rules over all; 
that so great and superb is God's plan, so august is His Om- 
niscience, so invincible and far-reaching His Omnipotence, that 
due-account of human self-will and human opposition was taken 
ab initio, without detracting from the fact that God is King 
and that the world of nature and the world of men constitute 
His Kingdom. Hence, when looking toward the ultimate out- 
come of creation, we may believe with entire freedom of faith, 
with England's late laureate: 

'That there is 
One God, one law, one element 
And one far-off divine event 
To which the whole creation moves." 



We may believe this fully and freely, because "There is a 
divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." 
Such a faith, indeed, is essential to rational existence; life, 
without it, is unintelligible. God began as Monarch and He 
reigns as Sovereign. 

While this view is eminently comforting to those who are 
concerned about the denouement of Creation, it is eminently 
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of Heaven, and even from 
the standpoint of those men who have a keen sense of the "fit- 
ness of things" and are alive to the deep problems of life. Can 



28 Jesus' Idea 

God, in view of His very nature, be satisfied with such a King- 
dom or Sovereignty? God, in the essence of His Being, ac- 
cording to the Bible, is Free-will and Love, no less than Power. 
If God is Liberty and Love, we cannot expect Him (humanly 
speaking) to be satisfied with a sovereignty over men, which is 
non-moral in character and the product or force, rather than 
loving co-operation. Hence there is, in the very nature of God, 
the potentiality of a far-higher and nobler Kingdom than one 
founded upon mere authority. An earthly parent desires the 
free and loving obedience of his children, not an obedience ren- 
dered to his authority alone. So it is with God. He desires 
and seeks the submission of men to His authority, their obedi- 
ence to His rule, but an obedience which is both intelligent and 
willing, conscious and affectionate. 

The world of nature, let us remember, obeys the will of 
God, because His laws are inherent in its very constitution; 
there is no freedom of the will, no power of choice, no self- 
consciousness; it must proceed in its God-appointed channel. 
In the world of men, however, there is freedom of the will, a 
power of choice, self-consciousness. Man is not a machine, 
made, wound up and designed to run. Man is a personality; 
he is alone capable of entering into the closest relationship with 
his Creator; man can love and consciously obey. Therefore, 
the great world-problem is not what it is often supposed to be : 
Will God's end in Creation be attained? Rather is it: Will 
man co-operate with God in the realization and attainment of 
that end? Thus, as in the inherent nature of God, there lies 
is the essential nature of man, the possibility of, the foundation 
for, and the prophecy of a Kingdom of God, far higher and 
nobler, because moral and spiritual, than that which exists in 
the world of nature. The Kingdom of God in the physical 
world, indeed, is one thing; the Kingdom of God in humanity 
is another. 

Now this idea of a Kingdom of God in humanity was God's 
object in Creation, if the Biblical standpoint be accepted. Upon 
the Kingdom of God in the physical world, God would rear a 
Kingdom of God in humanity; the one representing an uncon- 
scious obedience; the other, a conscious and willing obedience 
to His will. But it must be noted that in man's ability to do 
good there lies also the possibility of his doing evil. The very 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 29 

freedom of man's will renders the Kingdom of God in humanity 
open to a temporary defeat, at least; man might choose not to 
obey God. 

"Disobey ! 
You may divide the Universe with God, 
Keeping your will unbent, and hold a world 
Where He is not supreme." 

Such freedom of choice, indeed, marked out, apparently, 
two distinct paths along which the Kingdom of God could be 
realized — the pathway of obedience, — the pathway of disobedi- 
ence. What the course of the world-development would have 
been had humanity seen fit to obey God, we do not and cannot 
know; what the tortuous path, trodden by humanity for cen- 
turies in view of its self-will and disobedience is, history, — lit 
up by the interpretative touch of the Sacred Scriptures, — reveals. 

In fact, in Genesis, immediately after the account of the 
Creation, we have the far-famed story of the Fall. Whether 
this narrative is history or myth, whether it represents fact or 
fancy, does not now concern us ; for whichever view be accepted, 
its substantial truth is evident, namely, that God's original plan 
in Creation for a Kingdom of God in humanity was not then 
realized. When the alternative was presented to Adam and 
Eve, either to refrain from eating of the forbidden fruit, and, 
in so doing, to obey God's will, thus founding the Kingdom and 
establishing His sovereignty over humanity, or, to eat of the 
accursed tree, thus disobeying God's law and violating His 
will, they elected to disobey, and thereby declined to render 
that conscious and willing obedience which nature renders un- 
consciously but spontaneously to the Creator. Consequently, 
all hope of a Kingdom of God in nature and humanity alike, 
bound together by a common obedience to God's will, for the 
time vanished. The Kingdom of God in humanity, indeed, 
became a future possibility rather than a present fact. This 
far-famed refusal, initiatory and typical of humanity's course 
in the future, also brought discord into a world in which har- 
mony should have reigned, and issued in sin and death. Milton 
rightly sings: 



30 Jesus* Idea 

"Of man's first disobedience and the fruit 
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste 
Brought death into the world and all our woe, 
With loss of Eden. Till one greater man 
Restore us and regain the blissful seat." 

Humanity had, indeed, selected its path ; but over and above 
the rebellious subjects, according to the Biblical representation, 
there was still the considerate, yearning care of God. From 
this point, indeed, the Old Testament gives a vivid, coherent 
and fascinating recital of God's endeavor to deliver man from 
the power of the evils, attendant and consequent upon his in- 
subordination. While the story of the Fall may seem to occupy 
but a trivial position in the Bible, outside of Genesis; and 
while it must be admitted that the account to us so important 
and suggestive, is passed by in almost entire silence, it does not 
require argument to convince the thoughtful reader that the 
idea, embodied in the story of the Fall, is the ever-prominent 
idea underlying the subsequent course of events, and the very 
raison d'etre of the history which follows. 

The earliest note of deliverance, and the prediction of the 
ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God — if so much can be 
claimed from a passage, at best vague and inconclusive — is 
sounded in Genesis 3:15: — "I will put enmity between thee 
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall 
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise its heel." Certainly if 
there is no clear promise of the Messiah here, as is often alleged 
by theologians, notably by Martin Luther, there is at least a 
significant prediction of man's eternal warfare with evil, and a 
slight foreshadowing, perhaps, of his ultimate victory. The 
subsequent history of Revelation, however, is developed logically 
from this promise, and reveals not only the painful struggle of 
humanity with evil, but the gradually developing plan of a 
God of Love for the utter overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan, 
and the final establishment, through a mingled operation of 
mercy and judgment, of the Kingdom of God upon earth. If 
we bear this in mind, the Old Testament especially, valuable 
as it is for its many ethical lessons, becomes a more vital Book, 
disclosing not merely here and there some sublime moral truth, 
but rather the Universal Plan of the God of all the Ages. 

The Old Testament, indeed, graphically depicts the terri- 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 31 

ble events which ensued upon man's refusal to conform to the 
laws of God; how the knowledge of His will grew fainter and 
more faint, until it bade fair to disappear entirely; how man's 
desire and ability to obey became weaker and weaker, until the 
future appeared dark indeed. While humanity was thus floun- 
dering in the slough of self-invited mire, that all hope of a 
future reclamation of mankind might not prove vain and the 
effort futile, God determined to begin anew with man. The 
rebellious race was to be destroyed, with the exception of the 
righteous Noah and his family; the descendants of Seth were 
to be preserved by the Ark (Gen. 6:5-8). Noah and his family, 
indeed, were to represent the Kingdom of God, for they 
acknowledged God's authority and obeyed His will. Presently, 
Shem, a son of Noah, and his descendants, were chosen as the 
line of salvation, the agents of the contemplated deliverance 
(Genesis 9:26-27). Later, the line was restricted to the fam- 
ily of Terah, whose son, Abram, was a mighty instrument in 
the hands of God for the achievement of His purpose. The 
early endeavor, indeed, to keep alive allegiance to God, and to 
preserve an adequate idea of the right of God to rule over men, 
issued in the call of him who has been styled "the world- 
historical figure." So great was humanity's impetus away from 
God, that a strong personality and a very marked individuality, 
seconded by the favor of Heaven, was necessary to check the 
ruinous degeneration. The needed instrumentality God raised 
up in Abraham; to him was entrusted the unique task of pre- 
serving God's truth, which was ever more and more endan- 
gered by the prevalent and rampant idolatry. Leaving Ur of 
the Chaldees in obedience to the divine call, Abram journeyed 
toward the land of Canaan, where, removed from the dan- 
gerous distractions and the subtle temptations of the home- 
environment, he might devote himself, with undivided atten- 
tion, to the task imposed upon him. There, a covenant, or 
agreement, was made with him by God. In virtue of his ready 
obedience to the call, God promised: "I will make of thee a 
great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; 
and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless 
thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:2-3). 

Whether Abraham was fully aware of the significance of 



32 Jesus' Idea 

his call, and his part in the gracious purposes of God, or whether 
the Hebrews themselves were, in the earlier years of their his- 
tory, or whether we have in this and similar passages appar- 
ently descriptive of that earlier history, the prophetic interpre- 
tation of the events of a distant past in the light of a splendid 
and more clearly understood present, in which they know them- 
selves to be the spokesmen of God and able, by divine inspira- 
tion, to trace the slender thread of God's providence through 
the labyrinthine, and apparently chaotic past, may be an inter- 
esting question; but it does not affect, whatever may be our 
conclusion, the significance of the part which the Father of the 
Faithful played in the early development of the Kingdom of 
God. And certainly, in subsequent ages, that part came to be 
clearly understood and generally acknowledged by the He- 
brews. The choice of Abraham, in fact, marked the beginning 
of the outward or external development of the Kingdom. Truly 
might the later Jews say: "Before our Father Abraham came 
into the world, God was, as it were, only the king of heaven ; but 
when Abraham came, he made Him to be King over heaven 
and earth." Abraham, indeed, became "the Father of the 
Faithful," i. e., the progenitor of those of every age and clime 
who, believing in God endeavor to fulfil His will. As such an 
ancestor, the whole earth was to be blessed through him and 
his direct descendants. 

Later, this promise was confirmed to Isaac (Genesis 26:2-4). 
Subsequently, a similar promise was reiterated to Jacob in the 
dream at Bethel, when he was fleeing, at his mother's instiga- 
tion, from his brother's wrath. In that sublime vision of the 
Ladder which reached from earth to heaven, and upon which 
the angels of God were ascending and descending, Jacob first 
learned of a communication existing between heaven and earth ; 
nay, more, despite the untowardness of past events, and the 
inauspicious surroundings of the present, he learned that he 
was a rung in the ladder which connected the heavens and the 
earth (Gen. 28:11-15). 

So, step by step, may be traced the gradual advance in the 
fulfilment of the divine intention, as it is depicted in the Old 
Testament. Then with Jacob and his sons, there enter upon 
the scene the progenitors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, whose 
advent compels us, in tracing the idea of the Kingdom of God, 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 33 

to deal with a nation, the nation of Israel, instead of with indi- 
viduals primarily, as heretofore. One of the most interesting 
portions of the Old Testament narrative, is that which re- 
counts, how, in the Providence of God, the descendants of 
Jacob, through the base treachery of the jealous brethren, mani- 
fested in the enslaving of Joseph, came to dwell in the land of 
Egypt* This apparently trivial circumstance was of the utmost 
importance to the future well-being of Israel. Had the paltry 
tribe remained in Palestine, it must inevitably — at least, so far 
as human eye can see, — have perished at the hands of the sur- 
rounding peoples, or have lost its identity through amalgama- 
tion with them. Time, peace, and prosperity were the impera- 
tive necessities of the moment. These were secured through the 
sojourn in Egypt; and there the Israelites were prepared for 
national existence, through the unbroken prosperity, which, at- 
tending their advent, characterized the reigns of many Pharaohs, 
and assured the opportunity for needful growth, until the band 
of strangers in a strange land had become sufficiently numerous 
to arouse the jealousy and animosity of their Egyptian hosts. 
This antipathy, leading to strong coercive and preventive meas- 
ures, sufficed to alienate their love for Egypt during the closing 
years of their sojourn, and filled them with an enthusiasm for 
liberty. Thus did the vicissitudes of prosperity, on the one 
hand, and of adversity, on the other, minister to the gradual 
unfolding of God's purpose. The alienation from the fleshpots 
of Egypt was soon followed by the Exodus, which, under the 
leadership of Moses, marked the beginning of the national ex- 
istence of the Israelites. 

All of these steps, however, seem to have been preparatory, 
and, while we can trace readily their obvious importance, view- 
ing the history of the earlier age from the standpoint of the 
later age, they do not appear to be closely related to the idea 
of the Kingdom of God. Not so, however, is it with the next 
step, to which the preceding stages were essential and prepara- 
tory. Now that the Israelites were grown into a nation, and 
had been delivered by Moses, a further and important advance 
was to be made. Henceforth, God would deal with the na- 
tion, as well as with the individual, in relation to the Kingdom, 
or rule of God. But the incoherent elements must be welded 
into a coherent nation. For this purpose the cowardly tribes, 



34 Jesus' Idea 

but recently rescued slaves, were disciplined in the wilderness, 
and a most solemn covenant made with them at Mt. Sinai. 
There the nation received from God laws and institutions for 
their use; there the nation was adopted as peculiarly God's 
People. "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called 
unto him out of the mountain, saying, 'Thus shalt thou say to 
the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have 
seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on 
eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, 
if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye 
shall be a peculiar treasure unto me from above all people : for 
all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of 
priests , and an holy nation' JJ (Exodus 19:3-6). 

That Israel acceded to the agreement is evident from Ex. 
24:4-9, where the solemn ceremonies which attended the ratifi- 
cation of the covenant are described. The importance of this 
step in the developing plan of the Kingdom of God cannot be 
over-estimated, although it is commonly emphasized to the dis- 
paragement, or neglect, of the origin of the idea of the Kingdom 
and the essential and preparatory stages which have just been 
considered. While the transition from what might be called 
the individual, or tribal stage, to the national stage of the King- 
dom of God, ought to be exceptionally emphasized: yet to lose 
sight of the original conception as it existed in the mind of God, 
and its feeble and struggling expression throughout the patri- 
archal period, is to rob the idea of much of its majesty and 
splendor. Instead of marking the beginning of the Kingdom 
of God, the step under consideration should be regarded as the 
most important step forward in an advance begun long since. 

Thus Israel, by express covenant, was to be God's peculiar 
treasure, — a Kingdom of God, and, further, — a Kingdom of 
priests, and a holy (separated) nation. When the significance 
of this expression is appreciated, the full meaning of this ad- 
vance in the developing Kingdom of God becomes apparent. 
A Kingdom of Priests! Now, a priest may be defined as one 
who stands before men for God, and one who stands before God 
on behalf of men. In other words, a priest is a mediator, a 
reconciler: one who seeks to bridge the chasm separating God 
and man, thus uniting man with God. This, then, was the 
unique mission of Israel. Israel was to be a domain, or realm, 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 35 

or obedience (for this is what we have found the word "king- 
dom" to mean) of those who, in obeying God and serving 
Him, were to act as Priests, seeking to bring God and man into 
harmony. Israel was also to become a "holy," i. e., "separated" 
nation. This is the significance of the word "holy" in this con- 
nection. The word does not denote moral rectitude; it is not 
an attribute of character, but denotes whatever is separated or 
consecrated to sacred uses. It is in this sense that an Altar is 
spoken of as the "Holy Table" : not that a Table, even if it be 
an Altar, can be "holy" in the strict sense of the word, for 
holiness is descriptive of character. The Altar is the Holy 
Table, in that it is set apart for religious and sacred purposes. 
Thus Israel, as a nation, was set apart, or separated of God, 
for His own sacred purposes: to minister, in some marked 
way, to the august plan of the Deity. 

Thus the idea of the Kingdom of God is ever entering more 
noticeably, and the rule of God becomes more and more a defi- 
nite end. Hence the title applied by Josephus to the nation's 
constitution is both correct and expressive. Israel was a the- 
ocracy — a Kingdom of God. 1 

Unfortunately, this idea of a people wholly consecrated to 
God was never fully realized, for, from the time of the insti- 
tution of the covenant itself, rebellion and unfaithfulness were 
rife. Yet the adequate conception of such a Kingdom had been 
gained and was at work in the minds of men. 

But now that God had a nation, the nation must have a 
home: such was the land of Canaan. That the people, settling 
by tribes here and there should lack a central authority and 
present a memorable spectacle of anarchy and license, need not 
surprise us, in view of their past history. Their state, or con- 
dition, is aptly described as one in which "Every man did that 
which was right in his own eyes," and "there was none in the 
land possessing authority." Stability and security, indeed, were 
alone gained at intervals through the various leaders, who 
arose from time to time, and whose brilliant military exploits 
commended them as suitable rulers of the people. They were 
called Judges. To this era belonged Deborah and Barak, 
Gideon, Jepthah, and Samson. The life of this time is dark 

1 The word, theocracy, is derived from the Greek theos, meaning 
God; and kratein, signifying "to rule." 



36 Jesus' Idea 

indeed ; its hues are mostly sad and somber, yet we cannot doubt 
that some pleasing features were contributed by those in whom 
the conception of the Kingdom was an illuminating force. It is 
probable that the beautiful idyl of Ruth and Naomi reveals 
the sweet and simple life of many of God's people in the time 
of the Judges. 

Manifestly, the continuance of so chaotic a condition por- 
tended even worse degeneration. The people, indeed, actually 
suffered more and more through incompetent leaders, as, for 
instance under Eli and his sons. While relief might be given, 
from time to time, by the appearance of so capable a leader as 
Samuel, yet the whole trend of events was from bad to worse. 
Nor was the mind of Israel blind to the sad and disquieting 
condition of affairs. The people, indeed, were fully aware of 
the state of disunion and disorder which led to such results. 
The logic of events, and the need of the hour, pointed to a 
King. The nations about them were ruled by kings, and why 
should not Israel have the same advantage? 1 

Thus the idea of kingship entered naturally into the life 
of the Hebrew people, and subsequent events were of such a 
nature as to lend convincing eloquence to this idea. The de- 
sired stability and union, indeed, could alone be obtained by 
imitating the neighboring peoples in the inauguration of a king- 
dom. This conviction, shared, no doubt, by many, became 
focussed, as it were, in the mind of the Heaven-enlightened seer, 
Samuel. He, conscious of the imperative need and appreciating 
thoroughly the situation, did not hesitate to act. In Saul, the 
son of Kish, he found the man, whose courage, youth, energy, 
patriotism, and imposing mien, fitted him for the mastery. 
Thus we have Saul anointed as leader over Israel, and sub- 
sequently made King. 2 

In the institution of the Monarchy, an advance of decided 
importance is made in the developing Kingdom of God. God's 
people were no longer to be ruled by Him alone: they were 

1 This question had arisen at an earlier time than that of which 
we write. In the days of Gideon, the people were alive to the advan- 
tages of a monarchical rule — even a hereditary monarchy. To 
Gideon they said, "Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and 
thy son's son also." 

2 See Appendix D, "The Institution of the Monarchy." 



Origin and Pre-Christian Development 37 

to be governed by a visible King, the representative or viceger- 
ent of God, who was prophetic of God's Anointed, yet to come, 
the ideal King of God's everlasting Kingdom. Thus the idea 
of a single ruler over God's people is introduced; an idea des- 
tined to play a most important part in the later history of the 
Kingdom of God. 

The Monarchy, founded under Saul, was consolidated and 
extended under David. King David, despite the shadows of his 
later life, is spoken of as a man after God's own heart, and 
when judged in accordance with the standards of his age, amply 
deserves the title. It is to him that a promise, somewhat akin 
to those recorded in the earlier portion of our narrative, is made 
by God. "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep 
with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall 
proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 
... I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. . . . 
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever 
before thee; thy throne shall be established forever" (II Sam. 
7:12-16). 

The intimate relationship that Israel's king was to bear 
to God is evident from a careful perusal of such a passage as 
II Sam. 7:12-16. The king is regarded as the mouthpiece of 
God, representing Him in every respect, and ruling, not in his 
own name and right, but in the name of God, and for Him. It 
is hardly necessary to say that while there was a more or less 
constant effort to realize the ideal of the nation as the King- 
dom of God, and of the King, as the typical representative of 
God, the ideal was very imperfectly realized, even under David ; 
and less so under Solomon, with whom as sovereign the king- 
dom attained the zenith of its earthly glory. Nor was it real- 
ized under the best of the kings after the division of the King- 
dom; even Josiah and Hezekiah did not adequately represent 
the theocracy. This now brings us to the conception of the 
Kingdom of God entertained by the prophets. 

We have found that the idea of the Kingdom was restricted 
to families or tribes during the Patriarchal period, and that it 
was somewhat obscure; that it became national in extent and 
more definite in idea during the Mosaic period; that to the 
idea of the visible Kingdom was added the conception of a 



38 Jesus' Idea 

visible King, the representative of God, during the Monarchical 
period. Let us now inquire as to the distinctive Prophetic con- 
tribution to the conception of the Kingdom, during what may 
be termed the Prophetic period of Israel's history. 



CHAPTER III 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA 

That Israel was possessed of a magnificent ideal, which 
Israel had never fulfilled, was perfectly apparent to the Proph- 
ets. At the same time, the hope and the belief that Israel would 
some day fulfil the ideal was grounded firmly in the prophetic 
heart. No failure, however dire, could dispel it, no disaster 
crush it. The most salient and amazing characteristic of the 
prophets, indeed, is their sublime and invincible optimism, when 
pessimism seemed more natural and sensible. Even when the 
possibility of Israel's realizing her high destiny seemed least, the 
prophetic conviction that Israel would fulfil her destiny, shone 
brightest. One thing, however, was absolutely certain: the 
coming consummation of their hopes would be in the future. 
The disruption of the Kingdom, the evil days that overtook 
the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah before their fall, the vio- 
lence within as well as without, their final overthrow, and the 
humiliation and captivity of the nation, caused the prophets to 
look to the future for the fulfilment of that dream which was 
dearer to them than life itself. God had promised and He 
could not lie: His Kingdom would come. The perfect King 
would appear: when, they did not know, but come, He would. 
Such was the prophetic reasoning. 1 

1 Isaiah, for instance, declares, "Behold a virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," i.e., "God with 
us" (7:14). Again we find him declaring with all the intensity of 
his prophetic soul, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, 
and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name 
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever- 
lasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his gov- 
ernment and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, 
and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment 
and with justice, from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the 
Lord of hosts will perform this" (9:6-7). No better conception of 
the King and the Kingdom, and no better witness to the prophetic 
conviction that this splendid dream will be realized can be found 
in the prophetic literature than that furnished to us by Isaiah in 
the words just quoted. 

39 



40 Jesus' Idea 

Further, when the King and the Kingdom have come, then 
will Israel fulfil her destiny, becoming in very truth a Kingdom 
of Priests who reconcile the nations to God. The universal 
aspect of Israel's mission breaks forth clear and strong in the 
prophetic literature. National insignificance and humiliation 
could not break the vision. The prophets, indeed, looked for- 
ward with the utmost confidence to the time when God's sov- 
ereignty should be realized, not only over Israel but over all 
the earth. 1 More and more, however, did it become evident to 
the prophets eagerly awaiting the consummation of the Mes- 
sianic hope, that the true theocracy would not be inaugurated 
by even such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah, and that it could 
not be realized in the midst of the prevailing conditions. In 
consequence, higher and more spiritual conceptions of the com- 
ing Kingdom became apparent. The new covenant is to differ 
somewhat from the old. It is to be an inner rather than an 
outer thing; upon the heart rather than upon tables of stone. 2 

1 Micah writes : "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that 
the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established on the 
top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills ; and 
the people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come and say, 
Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the 
house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and 
we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth of Zion, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among 
many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall 
beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning- 
hooks : and nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither 
shall they learn war any more" (4:i-3)._ Isaiah 42:6-7 is equally 
explicit: "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will 
hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and will give thee for a 
covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the 
blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them 
that sit in darkness out of the prison house." 

2 Jeremiah voices this conception : "Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, 
and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I 
made with their fathers, in the days that I took them by the hand, 
to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they 
break, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; But 
this shall be the covenant that I will make unto the house of Israel ; 
After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they 
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his 
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for 



The Development of the Idea 41 

Together with this lofty conception of the Kingdom, and, no 
doubt, because of it, there comes a nobler view of the coming 
King. It is felt that if the nature of the Kingdom is lofty and 
spiritual, the King of the Kingdom should bear a very close 
relationship to God. Thus the founder of the Kingdom was 
regarded with an ever-increasing reverence by Israel. His 
person and His prerogatives were constantly magnified. 1 It 
ought to be remembered, however, that throughout the Old 
Testament, the chief interest is the Kingdom of God. The 
importance of the Messiah, or the coming King, lay in the 
fact that he was to be the medium of the Kingdom. Great as 
he was, he was only of importance in relation to the Kingdom 
of God. This truth has been lost sight of by the Christian 
Church to a great extent. The relationship, indeed, has been 
reversed. The Person of the Messiah is everything, the King- 

they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest 
of them, saith the Lord" (31:31-34). Ezekiel speaks in the same 
strain : "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 
I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your 
flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my 
spirit within you; and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye 
shall keep my judgments, and do them" (36:25-27). Joel also 
gives us a passage of emphatic significance. "And it shall come to 
pass afterward that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your 
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream 
dreams, your young men shall see visions : And also upon the 
servants, and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out 
my Spirit" (2:28, 29). 

1 Of this tendency, Micah affords an interesting illustration : "But 
thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thou- 
sands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that 
is to be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, 
from everlasting" (5:2). The coming King is, according to a com- 
mon interpretation, referred to thus by Daniel : "I saw in the 
night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the 
clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they 
brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion 
and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages 
should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which 
shall not pass away, and his kingdom fhat which shall not be 
destroyed" (7:13, 14). Malachi declares: "Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me : and the Lord, 
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger 
of the covenant, whom ye delight in : behold, he shall come, saith 
the Lord of hosts" (3:1). 



42 Jesus' Idea 

dom somewhat subordinate. 

There entered at this time, also, from a due appreciation 
of the inward and spiritual character of the new Covenant, or 
Kingdom, a keen and painful sense of the great labor and diffi- 
culty involved in its introduction. Because of the presence of 
human sin and human opposition, the heralds of the Kingdom, 
despite their relation to God and His majestic attributes, must 
perform their task at the expense of toil and suffering. Their 
life, indeed, was to be a path of thorns. So we have the con- 
ception of the Suffering Servant of God, that "in which all the 
prophetic force of the genius of Israel seemed concentrated" 
(Isa. 52:14; 53). The idea is that he who would do God's 
will, and seek to persuade men to God's allegiance, must ex- 
pect to suffer. This truth, indeed, had already been most 
signally illustrated in the history of God's Chosen People, and 
in the persons of their most illustrious men, — Joseph, Moses, 
David, and many of the Prophets. 1 

As to the form of the Kingdom, with that seemingly irre- 
sistible tendency of human nature to idealize the past, often 
to the sad neglect of the present, the coming Kingdom was 
viewed as assuming Davidic splendor. The nation would be 
restored and re-united, so Ezekiel fondly painted (Ez. 37) ; 
Isaiah sees the nation purified and converted with all former in- 
stitutions in full vigor and effectiveness (Isaiah 1 125-27). Israel, 
indeed, would attain the zenith of her glory, while the sur- 
rounding nations, to whom had been given the knowledge of 
the true God, would be incorporated with the Chosen people 
(Isaiah 2:23), or tributary to them (Isaiah 60). Such, sub- 
stantially, was the prophetic conception, although different 
prophets might emphasize individual aspects or characteristics 
of the Kingdom, according to their individuality or the time in 
which they lived. To Isaiah, the great prophet-statesman of 
the turbulent times of Ahaz and Hezekiah, the Kingdom ap- 
peared as a state in the very height of political and material 
prosperity. To Jeremiah, in the sad and evil days of Judah's 
decline and fall, the Kingdom assumed a decidedly ethical 
character: his dream was of a reformed people. While to the 
brightening vision of the Second Isaiah, in the happy days of the 

1 This aspect of God's service is also most pathetically set forth 
in the 22nd Psalm. 



The Development of the Idea 43 

return from exile, the Kingdom seemed to be distinctively reli- 
gious — Israel, fulfilling her high destiny as the religious teacher 
of the nations. 

There appeared, however, during the Prophetic Period, an 
idea of great importance to our study. In the early days of 
the Hebrew people, the state or nation as a whole, was identi- 
fied with the Kingdom of God. The bounds of the one were 
the bounds of the other. Every Hebrew, as a Hebrew, was a 
member of the theocracy. The Kingdom was the entire na- 
tion. Later in their history, however, and especially in the era 
of the prophets, this idea experienced a novel development. 
We find the conception of a theocracy within a theocracy, a 
church within a church, a Kingdom of God within the sup- 
posed Kingdom of God. This is a peculiarity of even the earlier 
prophets. Amos and Hosea, for instance, while they predict in 
unsparing terms, a due and dire punishment for the people's 
sins, yet, as emphatically declare that a remnant would survive 
and be true to Jehovah. This doctrine of a remnant, indeed, is 
a marked characteristic of the prophetic writings. No matter 
how dark and threatening the impending night, a brighter day 
would dawn, with at least a remnant true to God. 

While this idea is met with in the earlier prophets, Elijah, 
for instance, it received a more pronounced development in the 
closing years of the nation's history as a Kingdom. To the 
enlightened vision of the prophets, their people, as a whole, 
seemed to be doomed. God's patience was exhausted. Hence 
we notice that their efforts are bent toward the salvation of a 
remnant of the people, this remnant to do the work for God. 
Thus was the idea introduced that the Kingdom of God was 
not co-extensive with the nation, and not rightly the possession 
of every Hebrew in virtue of his birth. Rather was the King- 
dom restricted to a portion of the nation, and the possession of 
those Hebrews alone, whose integrity of heart and life en- 
titled them to it. 1 This narrowing of the conception seems 
strangely prophetic of Our Lord's action in choosing His band 

1 This tendency to restrict the idea of the Kingdom is conspicu- 
ously exemplified in the conduct of Isaiah (8:16-18) : "Bind up the 
testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon 
the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will 
look for him. Behold, I, and the children whom the Lord hath 



44 Jesus' Idea 

of disciples from the midst of a nation which, as a whole, would 
not heed His call. It is eternally prophetic also of the truth 
that "great achievements made by any people are generally the 
work of the minority." 

The Babylonian Exile of the Chosen People did not in any 
way crush the expectation of the Kingdom of God. Rather did 
it strengthen and intensify the conception. The prophecies of 
Daniel, Ch. 2 and 7, whether we accept the traditional date 
of the Book, or that which modern scholarship accords to it, 
amply attests the undimmed splendor of the Messianic hope. 
His vision of a Kingdom of God, which should succeed the 
four great world-kingdoms, — human, not brutish in character, 
a Kingdom inaugurated of Heaven, universal in extent, and 
everlasting in time, is of prime importance to our study both 
in its present stage and in its future development. This vision 
of Daniel, indeed, did more to stereotype the Jewish idea of 
the coming Kingdom than any image, figure, or utterance of 
any earlier prophet. Because of the great significance of Dan- 
iel's contribution to the idea of the Kingdom of God, it is well 
to quote the passage at length. "I saw in the night visions, 
and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him 
near before him. And there was given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, 
should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which 
shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be 
destroyed. I (Daniel) was grieved in my spirit in the midst 
of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came 
near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth 
of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpreta- 
tion of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are 
four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints 
of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the 

given me, are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord 
of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion." Malachi (3:16) also 
refers to the intimate association, binding together those who 
feared the Lord: "Then they that feared the Lord spake often one 
to another, and the Lord harkened and heard it, and a book of 
remembrance was written before him for them that feared the 
Lord, and that thought upon his name." 



The Development of the Idea 45 

kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. And the kingdom 
and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole 
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most 
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all domin- 
ions shall serve and obey him." (Daniel 7:13-19 and vs. 27). 

Resuming now the thread of our narrative, and for the 
time being, according to the Book of Daniel its traditional date, 
it remains to say that after the Exile we have the teaching of 
the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah. 1 These, however, add 
nothing that is new or distinctive to the conception of the king- 
dom. On the other hand, Malachi, who is the last of the 
prophetic voices of the Old Testament, speaks of the coming 
Kingdom, and adds that before the advent of that day, Elijah 
would be sent to prepare the way. "Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me" (3:1). 
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming 
of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn 
the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the 
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a 
curse" (4:5-6). 

Thus the development of the idea of the Kingdom of God 
closes in the Old Testament. We have endeavored to trace that 
development in brief, concise outline, noting only the salient 
steps of progress, until all doubt has been dispelled, and it is 
apparent that that which called the Hebrew nation into being, 
and which alone can explain the remarkable history of that 
still more remarkable people, is the Idea of the Kingdom of 
God. Without this thread, the Old Testament, in its multitude 
of details, is utterly unintelligible ; with it, the Old Testament is 
not only intelligible but exceedingly fascinating. This people, 
their history, and their idea, indeed, are the most striking phe- 
nomena of Universal History. However, men may seek to explain 
its significance, the fact that such a people, such a history, and 
such an idea were developed, is indisputable. Explanations, nat- 
uralistic, diverse, and ingenious, have been offered by the subtle 
minds of brilliant and acute thinkers and students; but no one 
has been able to convince the mass of mankind that any ex- 
planation which fails to see throughout the entire development 
the finger of God pointing and directing to a fulfilment which 

x See Appendix E, "The Character of The Book of Daniel." 



46 Jesus 1 Idea 

bespeaks human redemption, is worthy of acceptation or can ade- 
quately explain so marvelous a history and so magnificent a con- 
ception. However, much that is foul, degrading and unseemly 
may be found in the lives of the great men, and in the institu- 
tions of Israel — and there is a great deal — justice demands an 
admission of the presence of Divinity. The words of the late 
President Harper, of the University of Chicago, express clearly 
the sanest conclusion as to the history of Israel. "It is the 
history of a nation, starting on the level of other nations, and 
gradually rising, through the influence of great leaders, to a 
more and more noble, more and more true, conception of God, 
and with every step upward, leaving behind some belief or cus- 
tom inherited from paganism, which has become inconsistent 
with the higher ideal of God. This history exhibits the in- 
fluence of the divine spirit — an influence exerted with all the 
strength of Almighty power acting in consistency with other at- 
tributes, and working in the hearts of a people held down by 
sin. It is, in short, the story of a nation, lifted little by little 
from the lowest condition of nomadism, and exhibiting at 
each stage of progress, the weaknesses and sins common to 
people at that stage of advancement." 

We are compelled, therefore, to ask, Is not such a history 
prophetic? Has the end been attained? Does the develop- 
ment of this august conception cease where we have left it? Is 
no new chapter to be added? It seems to us inevitable that 
something must follow. Order should not issue in chaos, cause 
must have its effect, means must attain its end. The words 
of John Fiske are applicable here : "God is not like a child that 
builds a house of cards to blow it down again." The Old 
Testament, indeed, is incomplete, inexplicable, and unintelligible 
without the New Testament ; the New Testament is incomplete, 
inexplicable, and unintelligible without the Old Testament. 
The one is preparatory, the other complementary; both are 
essential to a harmonious whole. We should not expect, there- 
fore, our development of the idea of the Kingdom of God 
to close with the Prophet Malachi. Hence, we are prepared 
to inquire, What is the next step? For an answer, we must 
look elsewhere than to either the Old Testament or the New. 



CHAPTER IV 



THE NIGHT OF LEGALISM 



Between the death of Malachi and the birth of Jesus 
Christ, several centuries of history, replete with interest and 
significance, but unrecorded in the pages of the Old Testament, 
intervened. Had we access to all the events of this period, 
they would be found of great importance to this study. Un- 
fortunately, the period is not well known. During these cen- 
turies, however, there arose many, if not all, of the ideas, con- 
ceptions, and parties which formed the background of Jewish 
life in the time of our Lord, and which, passively and actively, 
waged incessant warfare against Jesus and the ideas He sought 
to inculcate. The Scribes, the Pharisees the Sadducees, the 
Essenes, the definite conception of a personal Messiah, and 
many of the familiar institutions of the New Testament are 
the offspring of this era. This period is rightly called "The 
Night of Legalism," and it witnessed the rise of what is com- 
monly known as Judaism, which represents the latest and extra- 
Old Testament developments of Jewish ideas and conceptions. 
Let us now note some of the tendencies of thought and life 
which characterized it, and which affect our study. 

It would be both interesting and profitable to trace in de- 
tail the formative influences of this era but space does not per- 
mit us to do so. We shall have to content ourselves with the 
chief fruits of the period, the fruits of life and thought that 
bear upon the idea of the Kingdom of God. We shall be 
concerned for the most part with the Scribes and Pharisees, and 
the tendencies which they represent, and with the marked de- 
velopment, of the conception of the Kingdom of God and its 
King. 

The Babylonian Exile, as may be supposed, had influenced 
the Jews strongly and in many directions. One effect of this 
experience was to develop in the remnant of the exiles who re- 

47 



48 Jesus' Idea 

mained faithful to Jehovah and the Holy City an unpre- 
cedented devotion to their ancestral religion. Indeed every cus- 
tom, reminiscent of the former life, was assiduously observed; 
prayer must be offered with the face toward Jerusalem; the 
Sabbath, the rite of circumcision, and fasting, assumed in- 
creased importance. In every way the ancient faith and prac- 
tices were stressed. In thus emphasizing and safe-guarding 
their religion, the Jews were obeying a rational impulse. They 
felt fully and keenly that the humiliation of the exile was 
a deserved punishment for their disobedience to God's law, 
their failure to be God's Kingdom. Hence the only way to 
regain and to retain the favor of their jealous God was by 
scrupulous devotion to, and exact compliance with, all the re- 
quirements of His law. Consequently, while every detail of the 
law would be highly valued, especial stress and emphasis would 
be placed upon those points of the law in which Israel had been 
remiss in the past. 1 It thus happened that the very essence of 
Judaism, i. e., the religion of the Jews after the Babylonian 
exile, was a slavish adherence to the letter of the law. 

Accompanying this tendency to exalt the law, we find 
another tendency of far-reaching import. Persons were needed 
to collect, edit, and preserve the sacred books. This caused 
the rise of the literary class known to us as the Scribes. The 
Scribes, however, were not only to study and to edit the 
sacred literature, force of circumstances compelled them to 
become the law's interpreters and expounders. Consequently, 
in the Scribes we have the teachers and preachers of the time. 
They were the successors of the prophets of an earlier era. 
From the earliest period of their history, the influence of the 
Scribes increased steadily, until, in process of time, they became 
the powerful and arrogant leaders of Jewish thought and 
opinion. Soon they were organized into bands or guilds for 
the furtherance of their work. Indeed, they were the first 
to inaugurate the movement for the general education of the 
Jewish masses. And it must be remembered that their aim was 

1 Schurer says, in speaking of this tendency : "Its every require- 
ment was a requirement of God from His people; its most scrupu- 
lous observance was, therefore, a religious duty; nay, the supreme, 
and in truth the sole religious duty. The whole piety of the Israelite 
consisted in obeying with fear and trembling, with all the zeal of an 
anxious conscience, the law given him by God in all its particulars." 



The Night of Legalism 49 

npt primarily intellectual but practical: to influence their 
brethren to practice the law. In fact, by the strenuous efforts of 
the Scribes, the entire Jewish people became thoroughly ac- 
quainted with the details, requirements, and minutiae of the 
law, and of the law as interpreted and applied by them. In 
this endeavor they were greatly assisted by the synagogue, an- 
other outgrowth of this era. 

While the Scribes were perfectly honest in their purposes, 
they availed themselves of a method which bore within itself 
the seeds of death, and which was most admirably adapted 
to defeat the very end they had in view — the preservation 
of the integrity and the purity of their ancestral religion. 
In interpreting the law and its requirements, the Scribes were 
not direct, forceful, and convincing; their method was not 
simple and natural, but forced, circuitous, and artificial; re- 
minding us of much of the interpretation of the New Testa- 
ment that has been current in past ages and in certain quarters. 
Their exegesis, indeed, consisted of a detailed and elaborate 
definition and exposition of each command of the law, and an 
application of these definitions to the needs of daily life by 
means of excessive "amplification, illustration, and embellish- 
ment." The inevitable result of their method was a slavish 
literalism which often ignored the true meaning and intent of 
the law, and a heartless and senseless casuistry, which obscured 
the beauty and reasonableness of the inner spirit of the law. 

The Pharisees, another interesting product of this era, were 
the body of Jews who claimed to live in accordance with the 
very letter of the law. They composed a party of orthodox 
Jews, who were more strict in their observance of the law than 
the great mass of their brethren, and who valued the law 
more highly than life itself. Little need be said in explana- 
tion of the close relationship of the Scribes and Pharisees, 
which is so evident on many pages of the New Testament, 
inasmuch as the interpreters of the law, and those who sought 
to live in accordance with the law, would be from the first 
very closely allied. They represented, in fact, the same mental 
tendency, and were animated by the same purpose — the ex- 
altation of the law. The name, Pharisaioi, whence the word 
"Pharisees," is derived from an Aramaic word, and means "the 
separated ones." Whether this name was self-chosen and self- 



SO Jesus' Idea 

applied, as some assert, or whether it was an opprobrious 
epithet bestowed by their opponents, it is impossible to say. 
However, the separation referred to was something more than 
that which characterized the ordinary Jew. The Pharisee 
was like his fellow-Jew in all points save one : he was not con- 
tent with the strictest separation from the Gentiles, but sought 
to separate himself from the mass of his fellow-countrymen. 
And his reason was that the great mass of the people, either 
from disinclination or inability, did not comply with all the 
minute demands of the law, especially in matters of food and 
cleansings. Hence, in the minds of the Pharisees, they were 
unclean, and to escape the defilement likely to ensue from 
intercourse with them, the Pharisees avoided association with 
them as far as possible. Thus they were "the separated ones." 

One would naturally suppose that such supercilious self- 
sufficiency would have rendered the Pharisees obnoxious to 
the people generally. Yet such was not the case. The Pharisees 
were the popular and influential party of Judaism — more in- 
fluential in fact than the kings or the priests. The reasons for 
this have been succinctly summarized as follows: "They had 
more regard to the public than the Sadducees; they were 
milder as judges; they shared, and indeed nourished, the national 
hatred against the Romans; the doctrines they held and taught, 
their scrupulous observance of the law, and their outwardly 
strict and severe manner of life caused them to be revered as 
pattern Israelites." 1 

Nevertheless, the tendency of the party, and its fruits, 
were subversive of true religion. While the Pharisees might 
regard themselves as pre-eminently the embodiment of the 
Kingdom of God on earth they were in reality, as subsequent 
events were to prove, the chief hindrance to its establishment. 
Indeed, as a party they were proud, bigoted, and narrow; their 
religion was heartless and formal; they overlooked the inner 
demands of the law, and were occupied with outward com- 
pliance with the ceremonial demands of the law. They illus- 
trate a perennial truth. Whenever the moral and ceremonial 
requirements of religion are found side by side, human nature 
always follows the line of least resistance, and gravitates in- 

*Dr. Eaton, in "Hasting' s Dictionary of the Bible," Art. "Phari- 
sees." 



The Night of Legalism 51 

evitably toward the ceremonial to the neglect of the moral. 
This is the ever-present and subtle danger in ritualism, al- 
though the devotees of ceremonial in religion are loth to 
admit it. Ceremonial is, in fact, at once the deadliest enemy 
of true religion, and the congenial friend of hypocrisy. It is 
for this reason also that the Priest is usually the enemy of 
religion, while the Prophet is religion's friend, for the Priest 
stands for a complex and a ceremonial religion, while the 
Prophet is the advocate of a simple and a heart-felt religion. 
Another fact of interest in connection with the Pharisees is 
that the whole Pharisaic legalism was a natural, logical, and 
consistent development of their idea of God as primarily a Law- 
giver and a Judge : hence the relation of the individual to God 
was a legal one. Jesus' idea of God, however, was expressed 
by the word "Father," and hence the inevitable substitution 
in His system of religion of the personal and filial for the 
legal relation to God, and the unavoidable conflict between the 
two types of religion. 

A topic of paramount interest w T ith the Pharisees was the 
Messianic ideas of their Scriptures; to these they devoted great 
attention, and especially as they felt more heavily the iron 
heel of Rome. This brings us to another fact of importance. 1 

It was during this period, indeed, that the Messianic Hope — 
the hope of the coming Kingdom of God and the Ideal King — 
received its greatest development. Especially did the Messianic 
Hope concentrate itself in the conception of a personal Messiah 2 

1 Professor W. R. Smith says : "The scribes, who, in this period, 
took the place of the prophets as the leaders of religious thought, 
were mainly busied with the law ; but no religion can subsist on 
mere law ; and the systematization of the prophetic hopes and of 
those more ideal parts of the other sacred literature, which, because 
ideal and dissevered from the present, were now set in one line with 
the prophecies, went on, side by side, with the systematization of 
the law, by means of a harmonious exegesis, which sought to 
gather up every prophetic image in one grand panorama of the 
issues of Israel's and the world's history." 

2 Let us bear in mind that the expression, "Messianic Prophecy," 
with which we are familiar, may be used in two senses. The expres- 
sion may embrace all that pertains to the Kingdom of God and its 
consummation ; it may also be used with regard to a person — the 
Messiah who "is, not always, but often, a commanding figure in 
this perfect condition of the kingdom." To the average person 
to-day, the expression signifies the latter and not the former sense ; 



52 Jesus* Idea 

While the Old Testament gives us the cream of the Jewish 
literature which arose before the Christian Era, it by no means 
exhausts it. The Messianic conception, indeed, was kept alive 
and developed remarkably in the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic 
Books which arose during this period. In fact, the Messianic 
idea, both in its wider and narrower sense, received its greatest 
development in the pages of this literature in the last two cen- 
turies before Christ. 

The allusions are somewhat scant in the Apocryphal Books, 
but two possible references to the expected personal deliverer 
are important. "Until there should come a prophet to give 
an answer concerning them" (i Mac. 4:46) ; "The Jews and 
the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their 
leader and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful 
prophet" (R. V. 1 Mac. 14:41). The independence of the 
Maccabean age was rather unfavorable to the Messianic Hope, 
and explains the few allusions to it. 1 

When we come to the Apocalyptic Books, however, we 
find abundant evidence of this hope. In the Sibylline Books, 



and it is only with difficulty that the mind can be brought to see 
that the former is the earlier and the preponderating sense in the 
Old Testament. To exalt the later to the disparagement of the 
earlier is to mistake the fundamental intent and content of Messianic 
Prophecy. The burden and theme of Hebrew prophecy, in fact, is 
the Kingdom of God ; it is also the burden and theme of that litera- 
ture which Israelitish history and prophecy combined to produce. 

Yet we would not minimize the idea of the coming king — the 
"Messiah," as he came to be called. It is apparent, however, that 
the idea was a subordinate one, for some of the prophets, both 
before and during the Exile, as Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk, 
made no reference to the future king. The conception which was 
born in the time of the Monarchy seems, in fact, to be lost in the 
time of the Exile. During this period, and for some time after- 
ward, the future of the people is the all-important subject — not the 
future king. Indeed, after the Exile, the prophets Haggai and 
Zechariah voiced the opinion that as soon as the Temple was com- 
pleted Jehovah Himself would come and found a Universal King- 
dom. Before many years have passed, however, the conception of 
the king to come of David's royal line becomes the prominent 
feature of the Messianic expectation. How he was conceived of, 
and how the character of the Kingdom of God was viewed, we shall 
soon see. 

1 The reader might consult with profit 2 Mac. 2 :i8; Tobit 13 110-14; 
1 Mac. 2:57; Judith 16:17. 



The Night of Legalism 53 

which are predictions in the form of poetry, and are fashioned 
after the heathen oracles, we find an elucidation of the Mes- 
sianic Hope in its larger sense; mention of the Messianic King 
is only made at the outset. The salient ideas are these: God 
will send a king from the East, who, taking vengeance on his 
adversaries, will eventually bring prosperity and peace. The 
faithful Israelites will live in happiness and quiet; while the 
heathen, aware of Israel's prosperity, will learn to praise Israel's 
God, to send gifts to His Holy Temple, and even to adopt 
the law. Thus will the God-sent King be the instrument of the 
establishment of God's universal kingdom, in which the Law 
shall be accepted and exalted. The name "Messiah," however, 
is not used. 

Next comes the Book of Enoch. This Book was well known 
in the time of Jesus, and it belongs to the two centuries im- 
mediately before Christ. In the Similitudes, Chapters 37-70, 
there is a unique and well-developed doctrine of a personal 
Messiah. We read that suddenly the Head of Days will 
come, and with Him the Son of Man; there will be a resur- 
rection of all Israel while all judgment is given into the hands 
of the Son of Man, who will execute judgment according 
to man's several deeds. All sin will be rooted out from the 
earth, the earth itself will be transformed, and the righteous 
enjoy the bliss of paradise. Here we notice that "the Mes- 
siah exists from the beginning (48:2); he sits on the throne 
of God (45 :3 ; 47 13) , and possesses universal dominion (62 :6) ; 
and all judgment is committed unto him (69:27)." This 
book exerted a vast influence upon Jewish literature; in fact, 
it is next to Daniel in favor, authority, and importance in the 
age of which we write. Its influence upon the New Testament 
is very marked, and is illustrated both in "doctrine and in 
diction." It is regarded by many as the historical source of 
the New Testament designation of Our Lord as the "Son 
of Man." 

Decidedly illustrative of the ideas of the coming kingdom 
and king is the so-called "Psalter of Solomon," a production of 
the years between 70 and 40 B. C. This work was born in 
the age which witnessed the subjugation of Palestine to the 
Roman power by Pompey, and it breathes the desire of every 
devout and patriotic Jew for the speedy coming of the Davidic 



54 Jesus' Idea 

King, who should end the oppression of the foreign nation, 
and prove the successful opponent of unrighteousness and 
heathenism. Pharisaic thought and aspiration confront us on 
every hand. Here, to quote the words of Schurer, "We meet 
with the Messianic King depicted in sharper outlines and fuller 
colors in the Psalterium Solomonis." 1 

In the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, which are para- 
phrases or free translations of the Pentateuch and the Prophets 
into the Aramaic tongue, many opinions and biblical interpreta- 
tions which were current in the time of Our Lord are revealed. 
Many passages of the Old Testament are interpreted in a Mes- 
sianic sense. For instance, the word "Shiloh" of Genesis 49:10 
is applied to the personal Messiah, and we read: "The wielder 
of power shall not pass away from the house of Judah, nor 
the scribe from his sons' sons forever until that the anointed 
one come to whom belongs the kingdom and to him shall 
the people submit themselves." This interpretation, far-fetched 

1 Speaking of the author of this book, Schurer says : "He hopes 
that God will raise up a prince of the house of David to rule over 
Israel, to crush their enemies, and to cleanse Jerusalem from the 
heathen. (17:23-27.) He will gather a holy people, and will judge 
the tribes of the nation, and not suffer unrighteousness in their 
midst; he will divide them in the land according to their tribes, 
and no stranger shall dwell among them (17:28-31). The heathen 
nations will serve him, and will come to Jerusalem, to bring the 
wearied children of Israel as gifts, and to see the glory of the Lord. 
He is a righteous king, and one taught of God (17:32-35). And 
there is no unrighteousness in his days, for all are saints. And 
their king is the Lord's anointed. He will not place his trust in 
horse or rider. For the Lord Himself is his King. And he will 
strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever (17:36-39). 
He will bless the people of the Lord with wisdom; and he is pure 
from sin ; arid he will rule over a great people, and not be weak. 
For God makes him strong by His Holy Spirit. He will lead them 
all in holiness, and there is no pride among them (17:40-46). This 
is the beauty of the King of Israel. Happy are they who are born 
in his days (17:47-51). The writer expects, as it appears, not Godly 
kings in general of David's house, but a single Messiah endowed by 
God with miraculous powers, pure from sin and holy (17:41-46), 
whom God has made wise and powerful by the Holy Spirit (17:2), 
and who therefore strikes his enemies not with external weapons, 
but with the word of his mouth (17:39 after Isa. 11:4). He is, 
hozvever, notwithstanding such idealism, represented as quite a 
worldly ruler, as an actual king of Israel" ("The Jewish People, 
in the Time of Jesus Christ," Div. 11, Vol. 11, p. 142). 



The Night of Legalism 55 

and unreal as it is, was the popular interpretation in the time 
of Jesus (cf. St. Jn.iiig, 6:14, 7:31). Other examples might 
be cited. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that much of 
the antagonism exhibited by many Christians toward Higher 
Criticism, and the Higher Critic, is due to the love of supposed 
orthodoxy for the Targum misinterpretation of the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, whereas the Higher Critic is really con- 
tending for the truth of the Scriptures when shorn of Jewish 
and Christian perversions. 

Interesting also in its bearing upon the Messianic Hope is 
the "Assumptio Mosis." This book probably dates in the 
period from 4 B. C. to 30 A. D. Here the Kingdom of 
God is to be established by God Himself, and there is no 
mention of the Messianic King. The Messianic Hope is, 
however, a glowing one. After describing a time of great 
trouble, the author says : "Then will his kingdom appear among 
all creatures, and the devil will have an end, and sorrow 
will disappear with him. Then will the Heavenly One arise 
from the seat of his kingdom, and will come from his holy 
habitation with wrath and anger for his children's sake, and 
the earth will tremble to its ends, and the high mountains be 
lowered, and the hills fall. The sun will give no light, and 
the moon be changed into blood, and the stars fall into con- 
fusion. And the sea will retreat to the abyss, and the water- 
springs fail, and the rivers be dried up. Then will the most 
High God, the alone Eternal, come forth to chastise the 
heathen, and to destroy all idols. Then wilt thou be happy, 
O Israel, and will tread upon the neck and wings of the 
eagle. And God will exalt thee and make thee soar to the 
firmament, and thou will thence look down upon thine enemies 
on earth, and shalt see them and rejoice, and give thanks, and 
acknowledge thy Creator." 

It is necessary to mention only one other writing, namely 
the Book of Jubilees. This book is of great value in showing 
the popular idea of the law in the Messianic Kingdom. The 
contents of the book are claimed to be a revelation to Moses on 
Mt. Sinai, and the author endeavors to "carry the Jewish 
cultus back into the patriarchal or even pre-Adamite period." 
Here too is found a glowing Messianic expectation. Because 
it adds nothing of moment to the picture already sketched, we 



56 Jesus' Idea 

do not quote it. Its insistence upon the longevity of mankind 
in the Messianic Kingdom, however, upon freedom from old 
age and weariness of life, and its exultant exaltation of Israel 
to a proud position of world empire are noteworthy. 

From our hurried sketch of the Messianic Expectation two 
things must have impressed the reader: First, in marked con- 
trast to the extreme rigidity of the scribal interpretation of the 
law, the interpretation of the Messianic Hope allowed the play 
of human fancy to a marked degree. If we look for a concep- 
tion harmonious in all its details, we shall look in vain. While 
fundamentally the conception is the same, its amplification 
presents varying features, as we shall see in a moment. Sec- 
ondly, the idea so beautifully elaborated in the fifty-third chapter 
of Isaiah, of the establishment of the Kingdom of God only at 
the cost of and by means of suffering plays but little part in 
the conception. It is most remarkable that an idea so striking 
and so original should have had such slight effect upon sub- 
sequent Jewish thought. Such an idea was apparently foreign 
to the Jewish mind in the time of Our Lord, and it remained 
for the Carpenter of Galilee to harmonize the two apparently 
antagonistic ideas of the Old Testament — that of the Davidic 
King and the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Having taken a 
rapid historical survey of the Messianic Hope, let us conclude 
by presenting in summary the integral factors of the Messianic 
Expectation as they existed in the mind of the Jewish populace 
in the time of Christ. 

Almost without exception, an era of perplexity and trouble 
was thought of as the prelude to the Messiah's advent. Dire 
omens on earth, in the sky, and in the sea would announce the 
period. Elijah, the prophet, would return to prepare the Mes- 
siah's way (Mai. 3:23-24). Others looked for "the prophet like 
Moses" (Deut. 18:15) ; others awaited Jeremiah or some of the 
prophets to appear as heralds of the Messiah (St. Mt. 16:14). 
After the appearance of the herald, the Messiah Himself was 
to appear and dethrone the powers of the world (Book of 
Enoch; Sibyll. in. 652-656; Ps. Solom. 17:24, 26, 27, etc). 
The time of the Messiah's coming was conditional upon the 
repentance of Israel, and their faithful observance of the law. 
He was to come suddenly, and from Bethlehem, where he would 
live in quiet and obscurity until the time of his appearing drew 



The Night of Legalism 57 

near, when he would issue suddenly from concealment, and 
prove his Messiahship to all by numerous miracles (St. Jno. 
7:27; St. Mt. 11:14; St. Lu. 7:22). Upon his appearance, 
the world-powers would gather together against him (Sibyll. 
663, Enoch 90:16 etc.). This attack was led, according to 
the belief of some, by an arch-opponent of the Messiah — an 
"Antichrist" (St. Jno. 1:18-22; 4:2; 11 St. Jno. 7; 11 Thess. 
2; Rev. 13). Notwithstanding their apparent strength, the 
powers will be overwhelmed. The details of this destruction 
and its method are variously described in the Apocalyptic Litera- 
ture and in the Targums. The Messianic Kingdom will 
then have its seat in the Holy Land, with Jerusalem as its capi- 
tal; the city will be cleansed of the heathen (Ps. Sol. 17 :25, 33), 
and the Jews who are scattered throughout the world will 
return to Palestine. In the Psalter of Solomon they are gathered 
by the Messiah. 

Then, with a reunited people, will God's Kingdom be es- 
tablished. The Messiah King will be at the head of the 
Kingdom, but God Himself will be the ruler of the Kingdom. 
To quote Schurer again: "With the setting up of this king- 
dom, the idea of God's kingship over Israel becomes full truth 
and reality." It is for this reason that the Messianic Kingdom 
is called "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven." 
This phrase, it is true, cannot be found in the Old Testament, 
but it abounds in the New Testament, and represents the 
fundamental and omnipresent idea of the Old — the sovereignty 
of God. 

In the thought of some, the heathen, impressed by the pros- 
perity and peace of Israel, will come of their own accord, ac- 
knowledge Jehovah, and walk after His laws (Sibyll. in, 698, 
726). With others, the power of the Messiah was to be the 
compelling force. But, whatever the method, the Messianic 
period was conceived of as a period of surpassing blessings. 
Joy, peace, health, and prosperity would be the supreme char- 
acteristics. All unrighteousness will be cast out, the Temple 
and the Law will assume unwonted splendor. Even the dead 
of Israel will rise to share in this enjoyment. 

The most common title of the coming King was "the Anoint- 
ed," "the Messiah." The expression "Son of Man" is applied to 
him only in the Book of Enoch. As the chosen of God, he is 



5 8 Jesus' Idea 

sometimes called the "Elect," and "the Son of God." By all, 
he was thought of as a descendant of David (Isa. 11:1, 10; 
Jer. 23:5, 30:9, 33:15, 17:22), hence a universal title accorded 
to him was "Son of David" (Ps. Sol. 17:5, 23; the New 
Testament) ; and as a descendant of David, he was to be 
born in David's city — Bethlehem (Micah 5:1; St. Mt. 2:5; 
St. Jno. 7:41-42). Two views were entertained of the Mes- 
siah's personality. In the Book of Enoch, the pre-existence of 
the Messiah is asserted, and the supernatural element is 
generally conspicuous. This is, however, the exceptional view. 
The common belief was in a human Messiah (especially in the 
Psalms of Solomon), but nevertheless a Messiah of a high order 
and one greatly endowed with supernatural gifts and graces of 
God. There is nothing, however, in the current belief of the 
age which approaches the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the Son 
of God by nature. 

While many thought of the Messiah's Kingdom as ever- 
lasting (Sibyll. in, 766; Ps. Sol. 17:4 etc.), basing their 
belief upon Old Testament passages, some regarded the King- 
dom as of temporary duration. In the course of time, it would 
give way to a Kingdom of greater happiness in eternity. The 
world was also to be made new (Isa. 65:17, cf. St. Mt. 19:28, 
etc.). Some fancied that this renovation of the world would 
characterize the beginning of the Messiah's Kingdom; others, 
that it would come at its conclusion. A resurrection of the 
dead was also looked for. Those now dead were thought of 
as separated in an intermediate state, and enjoying there a 
preliminary happiness or undergoing torment. Some held 
that only the righteous rose to the joy of the Messianic reign ; 
others held that there was a general resurrection to judgment. 
The former was the earlier belief, and it made the resurrection 
synonymous with the commencement of the Messianic age. An- 
other view postponed the resurrection until the close of that 
age. Men would be judged according to their deeds, hence 
heavenly books are kept and these will determine the sentence 
(Enoch 48:7-8; Book of Jubilees). The ungodly are cast 
into Gehenna, and are punished everlastingly. Yet with some 
there is the idea of a temporary punishment — a purgatory. 
The Righteous are taken to Paradise. 

Amidst this variation in detail, it is easy to detect the central 



The Night of Legalism 59 

and salient features. The coming King was to restore the 
national independence of Israel, was to subdue the nations of 
the earth and enthrone the Scribal Law. Into this world of 
truth and error, of fact and fiction, of Jewish Apocalyptic and 
Legalism, was Jesus of Nazareth born. 



CHAPTER V 

JESUS' IDEA OF THE KINGDOM 

That the era of the "Night of Legalism" marked a sad 
falling away from the Old Testament conceptions generally, 
and especially from the conception of the Kingdom of God, 
is abundantly evident. Many events, indeed, had served to ac- 
centuate the temporal and material aspects of the Kingdom. 
The idea fostered during this period, in fact, was that of a 
worldly and political kingdom, composed of God's Chosen 
People, who were related to the Gentile world only through 
triumph and conquest. Thus the Kingdom was conceived 
of as primarily national in extent. The popular idea in our 
Lord's day, indeed, was of a materialistic, a political and a 
worldly Kingdom, coterminous and coextensive with the Jews. 
And to membership in this Kingdom, every Jew, by virtue of his 
descent from Abraham, had a just and inherent claim. The 
idea of the coming King was equally materialistic, worldly and 
political. Thus the entire Jewish mind was occupied with a 
dream of vast exaltation and splendor for the nation; the 
King must of necessity be similarly great and splendid. 1 

This conception reigned generally triumphant. It was pleas- 

1 Dr. Sanday thus summarizes the popular view : "The contem- 
poraries of Jesus, when they spoke of the 'Kingdom of God,' thought 
chiefly of an empire contrasted with the great world empires, more 
particularly the Roman, which galled them at the moment. And the 
two features which caught their imagination most were the throwing 
off of the hated yoke, and the transference of supremacy from the 
heathen to Israel. This was to be brought about by a catastrophe 
which was to close the existing order of things, and which, there- 
fore, took a shape that was eschatological." This conception savored 
far more of the present world than of the heavenly. Events, how- 
ever — the Captivity, and the disasters subsequent — had stamped this 
idea of the King and the Kingdom indelibly upon the hearts of 
the people. In consequence, it was, as we have seen, the conception 
of later Jewish Literature, and of the Je,ws in the New Testament 

60 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 61 

ing, captivating, in accordance with the aspirations and am- 
bitions of fallen human nature, appealed to wounded pride and 
vanity, and promised vengeance upon the hated foes of the Jews, 
who had so often in the past, and who were even then humiliat- 
ing and oppressing them. While the prophetic view, with its 
more spiritual and universal aspect, and its idea of a Suffering 
King or People, would be unpleasant in the extreme to a nation 
enamoured of worldly ideals. In fact, the prophetic conception 
was for the most part forgotten and obsolete; yet it was kept 
alive by a comparatively few humble and obscure persons, whose 
vision of things unseen and eternal was not entirely lost in the 
vision of things seen and temporal. Such were probably the 
aged Simeon and Anna of our Lord's time. 1 

It was to such a people, in such a condition, and nourished 
by such an ideal and hope, that after the silence of centuries, 
John the Baptist appeared, proclaiming with startling effec- 
tiveness that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and bid- 
ding the nation, Repent! We may imagine readily the sensa- 
tion created, the hope enkindled, and the inquiry awakened. 
Day at length seemed about to dawn. The air itself was 
instinct with expectancy. And what was the result? The 
startling proclamation, the sudden appearance, and the strange 
figure shook the nation to its very depths. We are not sur- 
prised to learn that, "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and 

1 The hope of this element in Israel may be expressed in the words 
"That we being delivered from the hand of our enemies might 
serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all 
the days of our life" (St. Luke 1 174). That there were many pious 
households and humble hearts in which the higher and nobler hopes 
of Israel were silently cherished is most likely, but they were, as 
a rule, far removed from the sphere of influence and publicity. 
Then, as now, the truest and the simplest religion is away from 
the centers of ecclesiasticism and the turmoil of the world. The 
hotbeds of life, indeed, secular and religious, have never produced 
the choicest flowers of manhood or of character. Simplicity of 
life alone begets intensity of faith and nobility of conduct. Such 
a household, perhaps, was the home of Joseph of Nazareth. Speak- 
ing generally, however, the prophetic conception had vanished from 
the hearts and the lives of men. It was, apparently, a thing of 
the past, and had been entirely superseded by the popular view of 
a material and political kingdom. This the Jewish people were ever 
more and more eagerly expecting, especially as they increasingly 
felt the iron heel of Imperial Rome. 



62 Jesus' Idea 

all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan" (St. Mt. 
3:5). The nation was anxious, indeed, to learn more from 
the wild prophet of the desert. But what did they hear? 
Did John voice the popular ideal of the Kingdom? Was his 
vision that of the populace? Or did he rediscover the long 
forgotten and unpleasant prophetic idea? It suffices to say 
that John was a prophet in every fiber of his being. In him 
we have the "Elijah," the messenger to prepare the way for 
the Kingdom. Not Elijah risen from the dead, but a prophet, 
as our Lord declared (St. Mt. 11:9, 10) of the spirit and 
power of Elijah, to whom Malachi had referred centuries be- 
fore. It has been remarked, and it is true, that in idea and 
development the New Testament begins at the point at which 
the Old Testament closed. Matthew is the logical successor of 
Malachi. John the Baptist is the complement of Malachi. 
The intervening centuries have contributed nothing apparently, 
and we resume our thread where we left it, without losing 
aught. 

With John, indeed, the prophetic conception grew once 
more into power. The popular conception of the Kingdom was 
distinctly challenged. John emphasized the moral and spiritual 
aspect, and hinted at the universal character of the Kingdom of 
God. He was in consequence at war with his time. The 
strong, bold and uncompromising nature of the man, however, 
compelled him to strike blows without fear and without hesita- 
tion, which shattered completely the extreme complacency of 
his age. Yet John was emphatically the child of his time: 
"for a man belongs to his age and race even when he reacts 
against his age and race." Especially with the Baptist do 
we find the prophetic doctrine of "the remnant" more clearly 
taught. In the face of the popular Jewish fallacy that mere 
Abrahamic descent entitled to membership in the Kingdom of 
God, John demanded of the Jews themselves, repentance, or 
a change of heart and mind, and the fruit of repentance in an 
altered life. He declared that the nation would be sifted, and 
that the Kingdom would belong only to the purified remnant, 
"the wheat" from which "the chaff" had been winnowed ? 
and further that the Kingdom would not lack for members, 
for God could raise up children to Abraham from the very 
stones which the Jews might be inclined to tread under foot. 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 63 

The prophet's estimate of the religious leaders of his day 
may be found in his characterization of the Pharisees and the 
Sadducees as the "offspring of vipers/' or "children of the 
devil"; for such is really the significance of the phrase, the viper 
being a common Jewish symbol for Satan. After a study 
of the Pharisees and the Sadducees we can appreciate the in- 
tensity of the prophet's burning words: "O generation of 
vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 
Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance" (St. Mt. 
3:7-8). With John, indeed, the coming Kingdom was to be 
primarily ethical and moral in character ; hence the nation must 
repent. There was to be a baptism of the spirit and of fire. 
When the multitude, for instance, aroused and expectant, in- 
quired, "What then must we do?" the answer came: "He 
that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; 
and he that hath meat, let him do likewise" (St. Lu. 3:11). 
The publicans were exhorted to "exact no more than that 
which is appointed you;" and the soldiers were commanded 
to "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and 
be content with your wages" (St. Lu. 3:13-14). 

Thus John's view must have been doubly distasteful to the 
Jews, indicating, as it did, the inward and moral character 
of the Kingdom, and at the same time declaring that not all 
of the Jews would share in the Kingdom of God, but only those 
who were fit, while all vacancies would be filled by others. The 
great work of John, however, was not to disclose the nature 
of the Kingdom, but to act as the herald of the Kingdom and 
its King. This he did with eminent success, stirring the peo- 
ple to great activity, and awakening the conscience of the nation, 
while compelling the attention of his countrymen to the prophetic 
view of the Kingdom. His life and his speech were strenuous 
and hard : they could, however, have been nothing else in view 
of his time and place. The characterization of Monsieur 
Renan is most apt: "This giant in primitive Christianity, this 
eater of locusts and wild honey, this rugged redresser of wrongs, 
was the absinthe which prepared the lip for the sweetness of the 
Kingdom of God." 

Having now traced the development of the Idea of the 
Kingdom or Rule of God, we come to our third subject for 
investigation: "The Significance attached to the expression — 



64 Jesus' Idea 

'The Kingdom of God' or 'The Kingdom of Heaven' when 
used by Jesus." The theme of Jesus, as we have found, was 
the Kingdom of God. Taking up the cry of John the Baptist — 
"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"! Jesus began His min- 
istry with the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (St. Mk. 1:15); 
the Gospel of the Kingdom was the entire burden of His teach- 
ing, and with further instruction in it, He closed His earthly 
intercourse with His Apostles. What then was Jesus' Idea 
of the Kingdom? What did He mean when He used this cur- 
rent and popular expression of His time? 

Jesus of Nazareth could not have remained unaffected by 
the burning question of His day. His was a time, indeed, when 
all thoughtful Jews must commit themselves to some con- 
ception of the Kingdom. John had raised the question anew. 
That Jesus was profoundly interested in the subject, we gather 
from the words of St. Matthew: "Then cometh Jesus from 
Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him" (3:13). 
The voice of John had sounded to the remotest parts of Galilee ; 
Jesus heard, and in thorough sympathy with John, came to his 
Baptism. The question which is a fruitful one with many ex- 
positors and theologians, as to why Jesus, Himself sinless, re- 
ceived the baptism of John which was unto repentance for 
sins, is really a tremendously insignificant one. For Jesus not 
to have submitted to the baptism of John, would have been 
inexplicable in view of His modest Personality, His sympathy 
and His age. The Kingdom must have His allegiance, no less 
than that of His countrymen. Bred, however, as He was, in the 
midst of Legalism and the Apocalyptic, what would be His idea 
of the Kingdom of God? Would He ally Himself with the 
popular conception? Or would He espouse the prophetic con- 
ception ? 

A great scholar of Germany, Bernhard Weiss, has main- 
tained that Jesus was at different times imbued with both 
ideas. He contends that Jesus in the earlier years of His 
ministry, hoped and labored rather for the realization of the 
popular ideal, in which the nation as a whole should be con- 
cerned, and that only later in His ministry, and because of 
the insuperable difficulties which militated against the success 
of His early ideal, did He abandon it, and become an advocate 
of the inward and spiritual Kingdom in the hearts of men. 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 65 

He further holds that this compulsory change constituted the 
greatest disappointment in the life of Jesus. While there is an 
undoubted development both in Jesus' view of the Kingdom, 
and in His teaching in regard to it, the development is legitimate 
and evolutionary and does not partake of the vacillating and un- 
stable character suggested by Weiss. While this question will 
not be discussed fully here, because our view becomes apparent 
in the pages which follow, it may be well to say that the theory 
of Weiss seems but the spiritual blindness of a man intellectually 
great — an instance by no means infrequent in the scholarly 
world, where great intellectual ability is never the guarantee 
of spiritual vision. What then was Jesus' view? Although we 
cannot enter fully upon a discussion of Jesus' view of the 
Kingdom of God at this point, inasmuch as His view will be 
considered in detail in the succeeding pages, it will now suffice 
to say that Jesus took the highest prophetic view, and lifted 
it to an ever higher plane of thought as to the Kingdom's uni- 
versality and spirituality. Hence His view was immeasurably 
removed from the popular ideal. A few reflections will con- 
vince of this before we proceed to a detailed study of the 
Kingdom as it is revealed in the teaching of Jesus. 

The Temptation of Jesus which, occurring at the beginning 
of His ministry, and in fact constituting His inauguration, 
is the key to His after life and work, offers dramatic testimony 
to the distinctive character of Jesus' conception of the Kingdom 
of God and is worthy of thorough and intelligent study. Let 
us consider it somewhat in detail. 1 

At His Baptism, it had been revealed to Jesus apparently 
that He was none other than the Messiah, the Son of God. 
This knowledge, coming to the obscure, unknown, and humble 

1 St. Mark 1:12, 13, St. Matthew 4:1-11, and St. Luke 4:1-13, re- 
count the Temptation, and place it in the forefront of the public 
Ministry. The account of St. Mark is cursory, while that of St. 
Matthew and St. Luke is more detailed. The latter agree substan- 
tially in the incidents recorded, except that the order of the second 
and third temptations is reversed. St. Matthew places the scene 
on the pinnacle of the Temple second, and the vision on the moun- 
tain top third, while St. Luke reverses this order, making the temp- 
tation on the pinnacle of the Temple third and last. The order 
given by St. Matthew is climacteric and far more dramatic than that 
of St. Luke; it is also more in accord with the parabolic genius 
of Jesus. 



66 Jesus' Idea 

carpenter of Galilee, must have caused an intellectual and 
spiritual unrest into the intensity of which it is impossible 
for man to enter. The turmoil of the soul, no less than the 
presence of the Spirit, impelled Him to the wilderness of Judea, 
where the severity of nature's aspect well accorded with the 
severity and the isolation of His thought and spirit. Many ques- 
tions had been raised, and they must be answered. What was 
the Messiah to do? What kind of Messiah was He to be? 
The powerless Galilean had just been clothed with supernatural 
power. (In fact, the fundamental presupposition of the Temp- 
tation is Jesus' possession of miraculous power.) But what 
was He to do with this power? How was it to be used? 
What did it all mean? These and similar questions must be 
met: hence, the wilderness. And hence, also — Satan! Death, it 
is said, loves a shining mark, and so does Satan. The very 
nearness of a man to Heaven makes him correspondingly near 
to Hell. The nobler the life, the greater the fall, the more 
terrible the effect, and the more strenuous the attack of Satan. 
The Devil is, indeed, an able General, and quick to note an 
advantage. So Satan now reasons: If the King of God's 
Kingdom can be defeated, the hosts of God will be demoralized. 
As yet, He is untried, untested. The wilderness is the fitting 
field. Now weak in body, and distracted in mind, as yet 
unsettled and undetermined, the opportune moment is at hand. 
The very logic of events demands Satan, and he comes. 

Half sneeringly and tauntingly, he says: "If thou be the Son 
of God, command that these stones be made bread." The 
reasoning is, Surely God would not have His Messiah suffer 
from hunger, especially when He is clothed with supernatural 
power, and has but to speak the word. It was the eternal, the 
universal, and the democratic question of providing "bread and 
butter." 1 The stern necessities of life afford Satan his never- 
neglected opportunity. So it was then, so it is now. The temp- 
tation, indeed, was most adroit ; plausible, reasonable and legiti- 
mate the suggestion seemed. If it was to selfishness, it was ap- 
parently to reasonable selfishness. Jesus, however, perceives the 

1 Satan, indeed, finds entrance into the hearts of more men 
through their daily bread, probably, than in any other way. Well 
may Jesus teach us to pray — "Father, give us this day our daily 
bread." 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 67 

true significance of the temptation, despite its subtle disguise. 
The question was this : Would He, endowed with supernatural 
power, use it for His own ends and needs, as, for instance, by 
turning stones into bread to satisfy His hunger? Or would He 
use it only in behalf of others? Egoism and altruism were at 
war. The import lay even deeper than this, however. In 
reality, a contest was waging between the human and the 
semi-human. Was His life to be natural and human, or un- 
natural and thaumaturgic? Was He to appear to lead a 
human life, yet in the presence of need or danger fly for 
refuge to that realm of the superhuman and the supernatural 
into which He had recently been inducted ? Had Jesus yielded, 
His life would have at once passed from the sphere of the 
tragic and the sublime, into that of the comic and the ridiculous. 
Yet Satan's mistake was the mistake of the majority of men, 
who place the things of the physical life before the things 
of the spiritual life. In this customary way he sought to 
seduce. Jesus' answer, however, was a crushing protest against 
this satanic fallacy: "It is written, Man shall not live by 
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the 
mouth of God" (See Deut. 8:3). 

Altruism had won the victory, but it was in turn to be- 
come the source and the center of the next Temptation. Satan, 
taking Jesus to the Holy City, and placing Him upon some 
lofty height of the Temple, whispers: "If thou be the Son of 
God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His 
angels charge concerning thee: And in their hands, they shall 
bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a 
stone." Again the taunt, "If thou be the Son of God," and 
another apparently reasonable suggestion. We have seen that 
if was a current belief among the Jews, that when the Mes- 
siah came, he was to come suddenly from obscurity, and to attest 
his vocation by miracles. This temptation, then, was a request 
for a concession to the Messianic expectation of the day. Jesus 
knew that He was the Messiah. But the nation did not know 
Him as such. Credentials were seemingly essential. What 
more convincing evidence could there be than that proposed by 
Satan? To leap from the loftiest pinnacle of the nation's 
Temple, in the very center of the nation's life, and, through His 
relationship to God, alight unscathed — who could deny or dis- 



68 Jesus' Idea 

pure such evidence? The nation would be dazzled, the in- 
vincibility of His cause proved, the allegiance of the people com- 
pelled, success ensured — and all, through a slight concession 
to the spectacular. And all this, again, without danger to 
Himself, inasmuch as God's "care for the pious in general" as 
set forth in Psalm 91:11-12 would be exercised toward Him, 
God's Son, in pre-eminent measure. Such was Satan's appeal. 

But Jesus again sees the import of the suggestion, and 
replies, "On the other hand, It is written, Thou shalt not 
tempt the Lord thy God" (Deut. 6:16). That is — no ques- 
tion of God's protecting care was to be raised unnecessarily ; 
God was not to be tried or tested without due cause; danger 
was not to be sought without adequate reason. That super- 
natural power which Jesus had declined to use for self, and had 
decided to use only for others, He now declines to use even for 
the benefit of others in an ill-advised, illegitimate and spectacular 
way. Had He yielded, verily the flood gates of the extraor- 
dinary and the marvelous would have been opened and 
Jesus, once entering upon such a course, would not have 
known where to stop. The Kingdom of God would have been 
won, if won at all, by the spectacular. Reminiscent of this 
temptation are those incidents in which Our Lord was asked 
subsequently for a sign, as for instance St. Mk. 8:11-13 cf. 
31-38. Jesus, however, would not be a superlative thaumatur- 
gist or Wonder- Worker. He preferred the pathway of the un- 
ostentatious. It is by no means pleasing to reflect that much 
of Christianity's machinery to-day in both the Protestant and 
Catholic worlds, is of the character rejected by the Master in 
the Second Temptation. 

The last Temptation was Satan's trump-card, and it was 
played with masterful skill. Beaten at two points, Satan 
was now determined to overwhelm Jesus. "Again the devifr 
taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth 
him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou 
wilt fall down and worship me." The Jewish idea of the day, 
shared subsequently by many Christians, was "that the present 
age and world lay under the control (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12) 
of Satan as king of the present time or king of the present 
things." What Satan now possessed, Jesus desired for God — 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 69 

the kingdoms of the world and all their resources. Jesus, 
indeed, dreamed a dream of Universal empire. Satan had de- 
tected this, and made it a point of attack. That empire might 
he His, that dream fulfilled, ever} 7 blessing and joy to the 
world of which He had conceived, become actual, if He would 
only do homage to Satan. Jesus felt, too, as every man of 
ability feels, the possession of His power. He was supremely 
conscious of His unrivaled ability to rule. And now the op- 
portunity had come to gain His end, and to fulfil His destiny. 
The Temptation, indeed, must have been terrible. It meant, 
apparently, the Kingdom of God without the Cross; the Crown 
without the Thorns. Verily — 

"The devil hath power 
To assume a pleasing shape." 

But here again the insight of Jesus is proof against the subtle 
suggestions of the insinuating Tempter. Jesus sees their im- 
port. The question was this, Would He, seeing the King- 
doms of the earth, and how they might be His, if He would 
listen to the dulcet voice of Satan, use His power in the adop- 
tion of worldly principles and methods? And what is this but 
the popular and political conception of the Kingdom and its 
King, appearing to Jesus, conscious of His personality and His 
power? Many had aspired to free the nation from its foreign 
yoke, and to gain for Israel the sovereignty of the world. 
There was Judas, the Galilean, who angered by the taking of 
a hateful census a few years before, the prelude to Roman 
taxation, had raised the standard of revolt, declaring that 
Israel should have no King but God. He had failed, but 
his party 7 still remained. Jesus must have known of him and 
of them. Where Judas had failed, however, Jesus could suc- 
ceed, because of His possession of supernatural power. Thus 
Satan uses the Apocalyptic conception of the Kingdom in con- 
nection with well-known movements of Jesus' day to appeal to 
Our Lord. The Devil, in fact, always speaks the language of 
the particular age. And success would he give if Jesus would 
only worship him. And what was the alternative? The 
Kingdom of God in the hearts of men of which Ezekiel and 
Jeremiah had dreamed; a Kingdom gained through no selfish 
use of power, through the adoption of no worldly principles and 



70 Jesus' Idea 

methods, but by the quiet proclamation of the truth, by a love 
for men entailing keen and bitter anguish, and perhaps death 
at their hands. A Kingdom gained through listening to the still, 
small voice of God, rather than the subtle whisperings of the 
Tempter. The majestic sovereign of splendor and might of 
the popular view, is thus offset by the suffering King of the 
prophetic view. The triumph to be gained by force is offset by 
the conquest to be made by love. A like alternative had been 
presented to the first Adam, and we know his choice; it is now 
presented to the Second Adam: What will be His choice? 

While Satan seemed to give much, in reality he would have 
given nothing, but would have gained everything. For, while 
Jesus would have ruled the kingdoms of the world, Satan 
would have ruled Jesus, and incalculable and irretrievable harm 
would have ensued to the world. Jesus would, forthwith, have 
become the prince of those to whom Mr. Lecky, in speaking of 
Marcus Aurelius, refers: "Despotic monarchs sincerely anxious 
to improve mankind are naturally led to endeavor, by acts of 
legislation, to force society into the paths which they believe 
to be good, and such men, acting under such motives, have 
sometimes been the scourges of mankind" (Hist, of European 
Morals. Vol. I, p. 265). The Kingdom of God, however, 
as we have seen, demands freedom of the will and a willing 
obedience, not force and compulsion. This Jesus perceived, and 
Satan stood unmasked. Sharply and decisively comes the an- 
swer "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" 
(Deut. 6:13 ff). Jesus would not be a temporal prince, but 
a spiritual King. The Devil's play had failed, and he "leaveth 
him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." 1 

Thus the Temptation is the struggle in the mind of 

1 St. Luke says "he departed from him for a season." In fact, 
Satan, throughout Jesus' entire career, was continually and per- 
sistently pressing upon Him the ideas and aspirations which had 
assumed such tangible shape in the Temptation of the Wilderness. 
St. Peter himself, protesting after the confession at Csesarea Phil- 
lippi against the self-announced sufferings and death of Jesus as 
unworthy of the Messianic King, is rebuked by Our Lord in almost 
the very words formerly addressed to the Devil — "Get thee behind 
me, Satan: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but 
the things that be of men" (St. Mk. 8:33 cf. 34~37)- Again, when, 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 71 

Christ between the spiritual and the temporal conceptions of 
the Kingdom. We speak of the Temptation: let us bear in 
mind that "temptation" really means a trial or a testing; 
the idea of sin is not necessarily involved. In the Temptation 
of Jesus, the trial or test was this — Would Jesus live for the 
outer or the inner life? The conflict was between the outer 
and the inner worlds. The significance of the Temptation, 
however, is the same whether we view it as an actual external 
event, or as an inward and mental struggle. For our part, the 
account of the Temptation is not history or external fact 
at all; it is rather the parabolic, pictorial illustration of an 
inward and historic conflict — the conflict between Jewish 
Apocalyptic and the Old Testament Scriptures. 1 

Emerging from the wilderness after the titanic struggle, 

according to St. John 6:15, "Jesus therefore perceived that they 
would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed 
again into a mountain himself alone." This is but the recurrence 
of the suggestion made in the third temptation, pressing with such 
force that the Master seeks solitude for prayer and meditation. 
Jesus had gained a signal victory, but He was compelled to hold 
the ground gained by ceaseless effort. 

1 That Jesus, as the Messiah, should pass through such an expe- 
rience is most reasonable, as we have seen. That He should sum- 
marize and recount to His disciples in vivid and pictorial way this 
experience is also to be expected. While the Temptation of Jesus 
is rightly regarded as prophetic, and typical of that which comes to 
every man, it must never be forgotten, as it is so generally for- 
gotten, that it was of peculiar application to the Founder of the 
Kingdom of God in the first instance, and, after Him, to the future 
ambassadors of the Kingdom — the Apostles. Jesus Himself must 
have recounted this experience, whether an outward event or an 
inward struggle. And what could have been the motive? Surely 
not egotism or conceit ! Rather was the motive didactic. The recital 
of the Temptation was Jesus' attempt to _ disillusion His disciples. 
It was a mighty protest against their Messianic ideas ; His endeavor 
to show them the path which they must follow after Him. The 
idea is well set forth in the words subsequently spoken: "Whoso- 
ever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross, and follow me" (St. Mk. 8:34). As in the School of Jesus, 
so in the Divinity Schools of every land, the Temptation of Jesus 
should occupy the preeminent place. For Satan's temptation of 
Jesus is Satan's temptation of every minister of Christ; namely, to 
use his power and office simply as a means of gaining bread and 
butter; or to seek results along the line of the theatrical and the 
spectacular; or in the general adoption of worldly measures to 



72 Jesus' Idea 

and again appearing to John the Baptist, Jesus is publicly pro- 
claimed as the Messiah. John cries on two distinct occasions 
"Behold the Lamb of God!" (St. Jno. 1:29, 36). This is 
indeed a strange utterance from the Baptist. Shortly before, he 
had heralded a Messiah of iron-will and of invincible might, 
uprooting, overturning, destroying; now he cries, "Behold the 
Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." What 
did John mean? The Lamb in all literature "is the symbol 
of innocence and gentleness, as opposed to cunning and ferocity." 
Among the Jews again there was the well-known Paschal 
Lamb, and the Lamb of the daily sacrifice. The figure of the 
Lamb is also used by Isaiah and Jeremiah to refer to the Suffer- 
ing Servant of Jehovah. That a reference to the Suffering 
Servant was intended by the last and greatest of the prophets 
is our opinion, although this does not exclude a possible refer- 
ence to the lamb of the daily sacrifice, or the Paschal Lamb. 
And what phrase could more admirably, or more truly, describe 
Jesus after the decision made in the Temptation? Not the 
majestic King of the Apocalyptic dreams now, but the Suffering 
Servant of Jehovah — the patient preacher of God's truth, and 
sufferer for God's sake, and so a King. Thus we have for the 
first time, the conception of the Davidic King and the Suffering 
Servant of God of the Old Testament, united and applied to one 
person — the Messiah. It remained, in fact, for Jesus after 
centuries to harmonize the two apparently hopelessly con- 
tradictory conceptions; the Temptation was the scene and the 
ground of that reconciliation. To what we must attribute 
the marked change or development in John's thought^of the 
Messiah, it is impossible to say. It may have been due to 
converse with Jesus Himself; or it may be referred to a flash 
of spiritual insight into the deeper meaning of the Old Testa- 
ment vouchsafed by the Spirit of God. Yet whatever the 
source, the declaration stands; a lofty note was sounded, and it 
has not been lowered throughout the ages. Jesus was the 
Lamb of God: the Temptation had crowned Him such. 

further the kingdom of Satan instead of the Kingdom of God. The 
temptation, indeed, discloses the fundamental principles underlying 
the ministerial life; it depicts the true ambassador of God. Were 
this done, fewer, indeed, in the ministerial world, both Protestant 
and Catholic, would be blind leaders of the blind, and dulcet-toned 
sycophants of Hell, who cry peace, when there is no peace. 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 73 

This we see also, if we note what may be appropriately 
called The Inaugural Address of Christ. It was delivered in 
the synagogue at Nazareth, immediately after His return from 
the Jordan. Returning "in the power of the Spirit into Gali- 
lee," Jesus teaches in their synagogues. "And he came to 
Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and as his custom 
was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood 
up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book 
of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he 
found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord 
is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel 
to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to 
preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to 
the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach 
the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book and 
he gave it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of 
all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture 
fulfilled in your ears" (St. Lu. 4:16-21). 

Whether St. Luke gives this address in its historical connec- 
tion is a small matter; its position is at least logical, and it 
indicates Jesus' conception of the nature of the Kingdom. (The 
quotation is the well-known Messianic passage from Isaiah 
61:1-2.) As soon, indeed, as we hear the address fall from 
the Master's lips, we know what His choice has been, and in 
what direction His work lies. He will be King through Kind- 
ness: His Kingdom be the grateful hearts of men. Indeed, the 
choice made, Christ never wavered, even though the shadow 
of Calvary already lay upon His brow. With a fidelity amaz- 
ing, and a grasp, from the very first, of the basic principles 
necessary in the founding and maintenance of such a King- 
dom as He had elected, that is most astounding, Jesus set 
about His task. 

Other testimony to the distinctive character of Jesus' con- 
ception of the Kingdom also confronts us at the beginning 
of the public ministry. Let us glance hastily at two factors 
in it. Jesus was well aware that as a religious teacher, His 
attitude toward the old religion would be questioned from the 
beginning. Hence we find Him at the very outset stating 
His relationship to the old religion in the Sermon on the 



74 Jesus' Idea 

Mount. "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and 
the Prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil" (St. Mt. 
5:17). Jesus here admits His indebtedness and relationship to 
the Older Religion, and defines His attitude toward it. He was 
not a destroyer but a fulfiller: His mission was to enlarge, to 
develop, to fill the Old Religion full of a new meaning and 
significance. Not one jot or tittle of the Old Law was to pass 
away until all had been fulfilled (St. Mt. 5:14). We note 
here a declaration of both dependence and independence. While 
led to expect some indebtedness to the former law, we are also 
led to expect some development, at once individual and dis- 
tinctive. This truth applies equally to the conception of the 
Kingdom of God. If the Law and the Prophets were to be 
fulfilled, we would expect the development to extend to, and 
to include, so weighty a matter as the Prophetic conception 
of the Kingdom of God. 

This truth is again clearly set forth, and as explicitly, in 
another pregnant but somewhat enigmatical utterance of Our 
Lord spoken at the outset of His career. "No man also seweth 
a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece 
that filleth it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is 
made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: 
else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, 
and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into 
new bottles" (St. Mk. a^i-aa). 1 

The disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees were 
fasting in accordance with established precedent; the disciples 
of Jesus were not fasting. Amazed, those fasting come to 
Jesus, and hold Him responsible, asking, "Why do the disciples 
of John, and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?" 
Jesus, applying to Himself the figure of the "Bridegroom" 
which had been applied to Him by John the Baptist, says: 
"Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bride- 
groom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom 
with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when 
the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. And then 
shall they fast in those days." The meaning of this is obvious. 
A wedding is an occasion of festivity, not of fasting, the 
expression of mourning — "I, as the Messiah, the Bridegroom, 

1 This saying is also given in St. Mt. 9:14-17, and St. Luke 5 :33~3&- 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 75 

am now with my disciples, 'the children of the bride-chamber,' 
my 'choicest and most trusted and beloved friends'; the wed- 
ding is on — why should they fast? Their fasting is impossible 
now; but presently, when the bridegroom shall be taken away, 
then will they fast, because mourning over his absence is natural, 
and fasting, the expression of their sorrow." 

Thus Jesus lifted the idea of fasting to a plane of dignity 
unknown among the Jews. He removed fasting from the sphere 
of rote and rule, and made it the true embodiment of the 
inner feeling of the heart; not a mockery, but a reality. Even 
a considerable portion of the Christian Church has as yet 
been unable to understand this teaching. Then with that mag- 
nificent intellectual acumen which ever characterized Him, 
Jesus rises from a consideration of the specific to the general, of 
the concrete to the abstract. It is as though He said — "You 
ask — why my disciples do not fast? and you expect them to 
fast in the prescribed fashion. Don't make a sad mistake! 
You mustn't expect to take the new cloth of my teaching, 
and put it as a patch upon the old, well-worn garment of 
your religion, for it would only tear away from the old, and 
the rent between the two teachings, which is now bad, would 
become worse. 

"Nor again, must you expect to pour the new wine of the 
spirit of my truth and teaching into the old decaying wine- 
skins of your religion, such as fasting by rote — the form and 
ceremonial of Judaism; for the energizing, fermenting power 
of the new wine of my truth, would only burst the rotting 
wineskins of the old, and both the new wine, my truth, and the 
old wineskins, your Judaism, would be spoiled. No, 'new 
wine must be put into new bottles;' my truth must create its 
own ritual." Such was the meaning of Jesus. Failure to un- 
derstand Him caused the strenuous efforts of the Judaizers of 
the early Church; it has also saddled the Christianity of our 
day with a large amount of ecclesiasticism, sacramentarianism, 
and formalism, borrowed from Judaism and heathenism, the 
outcome of the Church's endeavor to express the new truth of 
Christianity in the old forms and ideas of Judaism and Pagan- 
ism. However, this teaching of Jesus leads us to look for 
something novel and supplementary in His doctrine. And here 
again Jesus fulfils a law of life. Every man who is to advance 



j6 Jesus 1 Idea 

his age, must be in sympathy with it, and yet in vision beyond it. 

Other considerations might be adduced, but these suffice to 
show that Jesus' view of the Kingdom of God, while founded 
upon the prophetic view, was yet more universal in extent and 
spiritual in character than that of the noblest and sublimest 
prophecy. It was this marked and distinctively new element 
which justified Jesus in His proclamation of The Kingdom 
of God, in spite of all incipient and preparatory stages in 
the Kingdom's development. Truly, for the first time, do we 
have the Kingdom of God in its absolute, undimmed, and un- 
tarnished ideal and reality in the teaching and in the Person 
of Jesus Christ. 

It now remains but to add that to this idea and ideal 
Jesus was wholly consecrated. Heinrich Heine has observed 
that, "We do not take possession of our ideas, but are pos- 
sessed by them. They frighten us and force us into the arena, 
where, like gladiators, we must fight for them." This was 
emphatically true of Jesus of Nazareth; although the opposite 
was equally true of Him. While the idea of the Kingdom did 
possess Him in every fiber of His being, He possessed a mas- 
tery over the conception of the Kingdom, which only a pro- 
found study of His exposition of the subject can enable us to 
appreciate adequately. Jesus, indeed, lived on the heights. 
The mind of the peasant Carpenter of Nazareth had soared 
to the highest height of heaven, and there had seized the sub- 
limest of conceptions. This conception was His life; in it He 
lived, and moved, and had His being. His constant endeavor 
was to translate this conception into terms of human thought 
and life. This conception was the Kingdom of God. Every- 
thing suggested it, and everywhere was it seen; even in the 
simplest things of life. Nature seemed to teem with it, and 
the associations of an apparently monotonous and prosaic daily 
routine to bespeak it. The seed, the sower, the leaven, the 
growing mustard tree, the fishermen with their nets, the busy 
merchantmen, the gaiety and custom of the marriage feast, 
the hiring of the laborers, the children dancing in the streets, 
alike suggested to the Man of Nazareth, the Kingdom of God. 
In every phase of life He saw the Kingdom mirrored and re- 
flected. Whether He was in the simplicity of the humble 
home at Nazareth, or in the joyousness and freedom of the 



Jesus' Idea of the Kingdom 77 

happy days spent upon the hills about the provincial town, or 
during the occasional sojourns amid the attractions and allure- 
ments of the Holy City with its crowds and manifold interests, 
the thought of the Kingdom was His constant companion, 
more dear than aught else; so dear, in fact, that nothing 
could vie with it successfully or dispute its supremacy. Jesus, 
throughout His entire life, was a man of One idea; but that 
Idea, the most sublime, and the most comprehensive that has 
ever dawned upon the mind of man — an Idea, so splendid, 
august, and far-reaching, that men penetrate into its vastness 
with exceeding difficulty, and, when measurably the possessors 
of it, burst into an unfeigned confession of admiration and 
reverence. This Idea of Jesus of Nazareth is the subject of 
our study; a more worthy and more fascinating subject could 
no man have. 

And now having discussed ( 1 ) The Meaning of the Phrase, 
"The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven"; (2) 
The Origin and Development of the Idea embodied in the 
Phrases ; and ( 3 ) The Significance attached to the Phrases when 
used by Jesus, let us proceed to study the latter in detail, as 
we shall find Jesus' conception revealed in His teaching. We 
shall consider this especially in relation to the prevailing and 
popular conception of the Kingdom held in Our Lord's day, 
and also in its bearing upon certain problems and needs of 
our own age. The divisions of our subject will be: "The 
Subjects of the Kingdom"; "The Kingdom's Method of De- 
velopment"; "The World's Reception of the Kingdom"; "The 
Value of the Kingdom"; "The Alloy of the Kingdom"; "The 
Extent of the Kingdom"; "The Time of the Kingdom"; "The 
Church and The Kingdom"; "The Kingdom and The Super- 
natural"; and "The Vicegerent of the Kingdom." 



CHAPTER VI 

THE SUBJECTS OF THE KINGDOM 

However the view of the Kingdom of God which Jesus 
entertained might differ from the popular or the prophetic 
conception, and however the popular conception might diverge 
from the prophetic conception, the three were agreed in one 
essential point at least — namely, that on its human side there 
must be a visible manifestation or embodiment of the Kingdom. 
This fact is the more noteworthy in view of the idea of 
Jesus. While the Kingdom with Him was in its last analysis, 
submission and obedience to the will of God, at the same 
time it was to be tangible, visible, real — not a figment of 
the imagination, but a great and obvious reality. It must have 
members or subjects. Logically, there must be an outward 
expression of the inward spirit in the individual and an intimate 
association of those akin in principle and idea. Life, in fact, 
always tends to embodiment and seeks expression. It is neces- 
sary, therefore, to inquire concerning the subjects of the 
Kingdom of God. For the sake of clearness, we will consider 
the general theme under three heads or subdivisions: 

I. How to become a subject of the Kingdom. 

II. What characteristics entitle one to become a subject of 

the Kingdom. 

III. The duty of the Kingdom's subjects. 

Jesus laid down an explicit condition of entrance into His 
Kingdom and He made this condition imperative. The in- 
dispensable condition, indeed, is precisely what we would ex- 
pect after our casual study of Jesus' idea of the Kingdom 
in the last chapter. It is imposed in St. Matthew 18:3, and 
is as follows: "Verily I say unto you, except ye be con- 
verted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into 
the Kingdom of Heaven." While the saying is simplicity 
itself, the meaning is profound and searching. The words mean 

78 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 79 

that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, there must be 
on the part of the individual "a definite change of mind" 
and an absolute break with the past. The individual must 
turn himself about, for this is substantially the meaning of the 
Greek word OTpe<f>u, and its compound — eTnarpecpw, which is 
translated "be converted." The word involves the idea of 
a radical departure. What has seemed wisdom is now foolish- 
ness, and what has seemed foolishness is now seen to be the 
wisdom of life. One may realize more clearly the import 
of the figure, if he pictures to himself a man who is walking 
along a path — a path of his own selection; he is obeying his 
own will, following his own fancy: the path leads away from 
God. Suddenly there is a "right about face"; he turns and goes 
in an opposite direction. A change of mind and heart has 
come; the man begins to walk with God. This, indeed, is 
conversion. 

And becoming like a little child refers to the submissive trust- 
fulness, the ready dependence of the individual upon God. 
What is the most obvious characteristic of the small child? 
Is it not its utter dependence, its inability to do for itself, 
its need, and often its willingness to give itself into the hands 
of others? One might be tempted to select some other char- 
acteristic, but this is certainly the basal feature of the child- 
life, and that which most readily answers to the require- 
ment of Jesus. Now this turning with God and readiness 
to be absolutely dependent upon Him, Jesus makes the sine 
qua non of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. The 
thought is best interpreted by the saying, "Not my will but 
thine be done, O Lord." Thus entrance into the Kingdom 
of God is absolutely conditioned upon willingness to obey God's 
will, to submit to His rule or sovereignty. 

This drastic requirement is set forth by Our Lord in His 
earliest recorded teaching concerning the Kingdom of God ac- 
cording to the Gospel of St. John. We refer to the conversa- 
tion held with Nicodemus. While the subject matter of this 
conversation is well known, it is not usually interpreted in 
the light of its historical context, but is made to serve the ends 
of theological dogmatizing. Let us study it historically, how- 
ever. This Jew, it will be remembered, who came to Jesus by 
night, was a Pharisee (St. Jn. 3:1), a member of the Sanhedrin 



80 Jesus* Idea 

(7:50), and in all probability a rich man. With the tact of 
the polished gentleman he begins his interview with Jesus 
with the language of compliment and appreciation. "Rabbi, 
we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man 
can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with 
him." Decisively, and even with the appearance of abruptness, 
Jesus replies, addressing Himself not so much to the remark 
of Nicodemus, as to what He knew to be in his mind: "Verily, 
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot 
see the kingdom of God." x Nicodemus, indeed, was fondly 
picturing the overthrow of Rome and the establishment of the 
temporal and the legal supremacy of Israel, in which every 
Jew as a Jew had an inalienable portion. Jesus, however, 
declares — except any one (no matter what his birth) shall 
be born again, or be born from above (as the word may be 
translated, and this idea we are compelled to include if we 
would fully understand the import of the new birth) he can- 
not see the Kingdom of God. 2 The meaning is that unless 
one undergoes a radical transformation of character — a trans- 
formation so distinctive and far-reaching as to be compared 
to being born again — he cannot see, or preferably experience, 
for that is what the word means, the Kingdom or rule of God. 
This was certainly enigmatical language to the aristrocratic 
Nicodemus. Not even long familiarity with the idea of the new 
birth, which proselytes to Judaism were said to experience in 
passing from the Gentile to the Jewish world, could lead 
him to imagine for an instant that a Jew must suffer a similar 
experience in entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Surprised, 
Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? 
can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be 

1 While the account of his interview (St. Jn. 3:2 ff.) was "probably 
rehandled and condensed by the Evangelist," so that we do not 
have it in its entirety, yet from what is given we conclude that the 
paramount subject of Jewish expectation and discussion — "The King- 
dom of God" — must have been uppermost in the mind of Nicodemus, 
although it is unexpressed in the narrative. And the view of 
membership in that Kingdom entertained by Nicodemus would be 
that of his fellow countrymen, namely, that the Kingdom belonged 
to every Jew by virtue of his birthright 

2 Here, at the very outset of His public ministry, Jesus goes to 
the root of the whole matter, and sets forth the fundamental char- 
acter of the Kingdom — spiritual versus material. 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 81 

born?" Jesus does not leave him long in doubt, but replies 
in language which Nicodemus cannot fail to understand — 
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." 
Here we notice that being "born again" is amplified into being 
born "of water and of the Spirit." Thus the new birth, ap- 
parently, is to consist of two parts. What these parts are, 
it is important to note. 

Nicodemus was undoubtedly familiar with the idea of the 
Prophets that the advent of the Kingdom would witness 
the pouring out of God's Spirit upon all flesh. That Spirit, 
according to the Jewish mind, was to be given forthwith 
to every Jew. This belief, however, Jesus boldly controverts 
in the passage now before us. That is why He so explicitly 
calls the attention of Nicodemus to the universal need of being 
"born of water." Most important, indeed, is it to appreciate 
the relation of "water" to this new birth, for often an undue 
emphasis along magical and thaumaturgic lines is attached to 
the water of Baptism. Let us remember, however, that Nico- 
demus was a Pharisee, and that whatever of the stiff-necked 
and the stubborn had survived from the ancient Hebrews was 
concentrated in the Pharisees of Jesus' day. John, baptizing at 
the Jordan, had attracted multitudes to his baptism. Many 
were baptized of him, confessing their sins. The soldiers, 
the populace, even the publicans, were moved to repentance 
in view of the coming Kingdom. The one class, however, 
which felt no need of a death unto sin and a new birth unto 
righteousness was that of the Pharisees. Listening to John, 
they yet rejected him. "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected 
the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized 
of him" (St. Lu. 7:30). They lacked the one thing needful — 
repentance. "Born of water" on the lips of Jesus, therefore, 
established John's demand for repentance as the preeminent 
requisite for entrance into the Kingdom of God. The confident 
assumption of Nicodemus is thus rudely shattered. He learns 
that the proud and defiant Pharisee, who boasts of his virtues 
and thanks God that he is not like other men, must be trans- 
formed into the humble and suppliant Publican, who cries 
"God be merciful to me a sinner!" ere the Kingdom can be at- 
tained. He sees also that this is a universal requirement. For 



82 Jesus' Idea 

the first time, he grasps the truth that the conditions of entrance 
into the Kingdom of God are both negative and positive — 
"born of water and of the spirit." A little reflection, however, 
would reveal that this order was rational, and also chronological. 
Before the Spirit can be poured out, there must be the receptive 
heart, and the receptive heart is the repentant heart. The nega- 
tive must precede the positive; the human, the divine. 1 Thus 
Nicodemus was introduced to a new line of thought, and one 
extremely subversive of his convictions and his prejudices. Every 
man must become like a little child, if he would experience the 
sovereignty of God. Jesus, indeed, had wrought out this truth 
in His own experience in the Wilderness, and He makes it the 
indispensable condition for the subjects of the Kingdom through- 
out the ages. 2 

We will now consider what characteristics or qualifications 
entitle one to become a subject of the Kingdom. What were 
these qualifications as taught by Jesus ? Let us turn to the Ser- 
mon on the Mount for our answer. There the character of 
the subject of the Kingdom is depicted and the essential qualifi- 
cations for membership are set forth. 3 They are found in the 
Beatitudes or the opening words of this Sermon (St. Mt. 
5:1-12). We read, for instance, "Blessed are the poor in 
Spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" "Blessed are 
they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is 
the kingdom of heaven. JJ Such are the first and the last of 
the Beatitudes. Those which intervene must be interpreted in 
harmony with these; for while "the kingdom of heaven" is not 
mentioned specifically in them, some variant of the Kingdom, or 
some blessing inherent in the possession of the Kingdom, is 
enumerated. We have simply different phases of the same truth. 

1 The positive and negative aspects of Baptism are well brought out 
in the Baptismal Offices of the Episcopal Prayer Book. 

2 That Jesus, although He fulfilled the baptism of John — the bap- 
tism of water by the baptism of the Spirit, as John foretold that He 
would — should have begun His ministry, and continued it for some 
time, by simply reiterating the cry of the Baptist, "Repent for the 
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" is also emphatic proof of the 
stress laid by Him upon repentance. 

3 We shall appreciate more fully Jesus' teaching upon this subject 
if we pause for a moment to consider the significance of this Ser- 
mon. Interesting events occasioned its delivery. After Jesus' de- 
cision in the Wilderness and His entrance upon His lifework of 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 83 

These Beatitudes, however, sound strangely indeed, when we 
recall the supreme Beatitude of Jesus' day: "Blessed is the Jew: 
for his is the Kingdom of Heaven," and some of the smug and 
complacent Beatitudes of more modern days, such as "Blessed is 
the Baptized: for his is the Kingdom of Heaven;" or "Blessed 
is the Churchmember : for his is the Kingdom of Heaven;" or, 
even, "Blessed is the Catholic: for his is the Kingdom of 
Heaven." There is evidently a difference of opinion between 
Jesus and His comtemporaries, and many of His later followers, 
and in order to understand the mind of the Master, it will 
be necessary to note the several Beatitudes in detail, but briefly. 1 

gaining the sovereignty of the world for God through the patient 
proclamation of the truth, and suffering for love's sake, it became 
evident that such a herculean task could not be performed by one 
man, nor in one lifetime. Consequently, at the outset of His labors, 
He sought to reinforce His efforts by the appointment of the Twelve 
Apostles. "And he ordained twelve that they should be with him, 
and that he might send them forth to preach" (St. Mk. 3:14). The 
selection of the Twelve, however, demanded their instruction. There 
had arisen the necessity and the opportunity for detailed teaching 
in regard to the Kingdom as He viewed it. What He had wrought 
out in the depth of His own consciousness must become the prop- 
erty of His disciples. The necessity and opportunity Jesus met 
with the Sermon on the Mount. Addressed to the Twelve, and also 
to the larger company of believers, the sermon has for its theme 
the topic ever dearest to Jesus' heart — The Kingdom of God : The 
Character and the Conduct of its Subjects. In St. Matthew's version 
of this discourse, some sayings which were not originally spoken on 
this occasion may be included. However, whether the version of 
St. Matthew or of St. Luke be adopted, there is abundant evidence 
of the unity of the discourse, its theme, and its development. The 
theme is enunciated in the opening words, i. e., in the Beatitudes. 
Those who regard the discourse as primarily a protest against the 
Pharisaic interpretation of the Law, or a defense against the Phari- 
saic charge that Jesus destroyed the Law and the Prophets, make 
a mistake, we think (St. Mt. 5:17-20). Jesus, viewing the Kingdom 
of God as primarily spiritual and personal, is endeavoring to set 
forth the ideal character of the subjects of the Kingdom, and the 
conduct in which that character expresses itself ; while in giving 
such instruction He must necessarily warn against the current Phari- 
saic irreligion and defend Himself from the charge of being a 
revolutionist. 

1 The type of utterance disclosed in the Beatitudes is found in the 
Old Testament: "Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord 
will deliver him in the time of trouble" (Ps. 41-1 cf. 84:5-7; Isa. 
30:18, 20, 32; I Ki. 8:15). Hence the type is borrowed by Jesus, 



84 Jesus' Idea 

Each word, indeed, is replete with significance and first to 
challenge our attention is the term — "blessed." x 

But who are thus blessed? First are "the poor in spirit"; 
but who are they? 2 "The poor in spirit" are those with open 
hearts and minds toward God; the humble, not the self- 
sufficient. And to these, says Jesus, belongs the Kingdom of 
Heaven. Jesus, Himself, indeed has given us a vivid illus- 
tration of this spirit in a familiar parable. The publican, un- 
willing even to lift his eyes toward heaven, and crying "God be 
merciful to me a sinner!" is the immortal type of poverty of 
spirit. 

and we must look for novelty in the content and not in the form. 
Yet here there is dependence upon the Old Testament, for the 
ideas and phrases are also borrowed largely. "The poor," "the 
mourners," "the meek," "the hungering and thirsting," "the merci- 
ful," "the pure in heart," "the peacemakers," "the persecuted," "the 
kingdom of heaven," "the comfort of the afflicted," "the inheriting 
of the earth," "the satisfaction of longing for righteousness and 
truth," "the seeing of God," and "the becoming sons of God," are 
conceptions and terms common to the older Scriptures, and to the 
Judaism of Jesus' day. The Beatitudes also consist of two clauses : 
the one expressing the condition, the other the result. The thought 
is that compliance with the condition of the first part brings the 
result of the second part. 

1 The Greek word so translated represents a Hebrew word, and 
comes to us with the Hebrew meaning. This word thinks of man 
as the object of blessing. When God is the subject of blessing, as 
in the sentence, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel !" — a different 
word is used. This marked distinction Jesus probably preserved in 
His teaching. The root from which this word is derived signified 
"to go straight," "to advance." Thus an unusual conception of 
"blessedness" is gained : it consists in the possession of something 
which makes one "go straight," or prosper in that sense. Hence in 
the "blessedness" of the Beatitudes there is a religious and ethical 
content. 

2 St. Luke identifies these, apparently, with the poor (6:20). St. 
Luke's version of the Beatitude is the probable original, and is not 
due to any tendency to unduly exalt poverty in itself. St. Matthew's 
version is due probably to a desire to guard the Gentile world from 
a materialistic interpretation, when the technical word "poor" was 
translated into Greek. This materialistic interpretation, as a matter 
of fact, was widespread in the Early, and also in the Medieval 
Church, in the idea that voluntary poverty was blessed. This is 
still the interpretation of many Roman Catholic expositors. The 
interpretation, however, is negatived by the other Beatitudes, all 
of which, with one exception, deal with inner qualifications. The 
exception, however, deals with an external condition — persecution, 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 85 

But again we read, "Blessed are they that mourn: for they 
shall be comforted." A strange idea, but let us understand it. 
The Jew thought that with the coming of the Messianic King- 
dom, perfect comfort and consolation would be given (Isa. 
61:2; St. Lu. 2:15; 4:18; Rev. 21:4). Mourning, however, 
was then and it is now an ever-present fact of life. No one, 
indeed, escapes the experiences which entail mourning, al- 
though all strive to do so. Now this universal mourning, 
whatever its cause — and an inclusive, not an exclusive sense, is 
to be posited — brings its own blessing in the divine comfort 
administered. Such, at least, is the thought of Jesus. Of 
course, this is only appreciated by the spiritually minded. "Now 
no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: 
nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of right- 
eousness unto them which are exercised thereby" (Heb. 12:11). 
Nor is this relief only to be expected in the distant future? 
The Kingdom, or rule of God, with its revelation of the God 
who is a Father, speaks infinite peace to the mourning soul 
now. While the consciousness that mourning is but the keen- 

which is superinduced by an inner qualification — righteousness. 
Now, this term, in the Jewish world, bore a technical meaning. 
With us, as among the ancient Gentiles, the word is used in an 
economic sense, and signifies, primarily, poverty. Among the Jews, 
however, the word was derived from the Hebrew anah, which meant 
to be humbled or abased. To the Jew, "the poor" was one deprived 
of his rights, the humbled and abased by oppression. Often these 
were the poor in an economic sense, yet the essential idea is that 
of ill-treatment. The term is used again and again by Prophets 
and Psalmists to denote those oppressed "at the hands of a high- 
handed and cruel aristocracy" (See Ps. 18-27, 9:12-18; 10:2, 9, 12; 
Isa. 61-1 and St. Lu. 4-18). From this usage, the word came to 
designate the poor who suffer — "the religious poor." Thence, "the 
poor" became the title of a party among the Jews in process of 
formation some years before the Exile, but which was united and con- 
solidated during and after the return from the Captivity. This party, 
as we may infer from our previous study, embraced the devout 
and faithful Israelites, in contrast to "the worldly and indifferent." 
Hence, "the poor" signified "those who feared and sought after 
God." Professor Harnack, in speaking of this class, says : "Often 
too poor to pay even for the barest advantages of and privileges of 
public worship, oppressed, thrust aside, and unjustly treated, they 
could not raise their eyes to the Temple, but they looked to the 
God of Israel, and fervent prayers went up to Him : 'Watchman, 
what of the night?'" 



86 Jesus' Idea 

edged chisel which, in the hands of God, is carving the cold 
marble of our individuality into the likeness of our great 
Exemplar Christ, who was perfected through suffering, is 
both a comfort and an inspiration. (Heb. 5:8, 12; 3:11). 
Much that is finest in life, indeed, is born of sorrow and sad- 
ness. Mourning, then, is a Christian duty and privilege; not, 
however, the mourning as of those who have no hope. 

"All is in busy, stirring, stormy motion, 

And many a cloud drifts by, and none sojourns." 
"The worse for us; 

He that lacks time to mourn, lacks time to mend, 
Eternity mourns that. 'Tis an ill cure 

For life's worst ills to have no time to feel them. 
Where sorrow's held intrusive and turned out, 
There wisdom will not enter, nor true power, 
Nor aught that dignifies humanity." 

We also hear, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit 
the earth." Now meekness is the absence of guile, and of the 
spirit of the earth. 1 It is closely akin to poverty of spirit. 
In fact, poverty of spirit begets meekness or tractableness 
toward God. And, of course, this in turn manifests itself 
toward men in an attitude of approachableness, gentleness, and 
love. It is the meek, for instance, who, bowing the head in 
submission, place their lives in God's hands, cooperate with 
Him in His purposes for the individual and the world ; who, in 
sacrificing all, gain all. And it is the meek who really inherit 
the earth, says Jesus, or enter into possession of all that God 
has to give. 

He also tells us that "Blessed are they that hunger and 
thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Here, as 
in all of the Beatitudes, the thought is noble, if somewhat 
perplexing. In this case, the heart, Jesus declares, that knows 
a craving for the right, akin in the intensity of its pangs to 
the physical need expressed under the terms "hunger" and 
"thirst," is the human heart that will be satisfied. This is 
God's world, Jesus means, and God and the right will triumph. 

1 Meekness, in the Beatitudes, looks rather toward God than 
toward men, following the Hebrew and not the Greek usage, which 
knew nothing of meekness toward God, but only of meekness toward 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 87 

He, who recognizing that man does not live by bread alone, 
turns to God to satisfy his hunger for the righteousness he 
craves, will be filled and satisfied in the knowledge that more 
and more God and the right are triumphing in individual 
lives, and in the collective life of the world. While those who 
hunger for evil are but accentuating and intensifying a craving 
which can never be satisfied, but must eventually rival in keen- 
ness and insatiability the veritable pangs of the nethermost hell. 

Another utterance is: "Blessed are the merciful: for they 
shall obtain mercy." To be merciful is both to possess the 
spirit of compassion, and to practice benevolence. Mercy is, 
therefore, subjective and objective, passive and active — a spirit 
and a practice. If we follow the meaning of the Greek 
word used in this Beatitude, eleemones, Jesus emphasizes mercy 
as a practice, although the spirit of mercy is not to be ex- 
cluded. The spirit of mercy is well indicated in Jesus' reply 
to a question of St. Peter: "Then came Peter to him and 
said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I 
forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say, 
not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven" 
(St. Mt. 18:21-35). The spirit of mercy is, therefore, that 
which is illimitable in its forgiveness. The practice of mercy, 
on the other hand, is well evidenced in the conduct of the 
God, "who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, 
and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust"; and in the 
action of the Man who, in generous sympathy, when sur- 
rounded by publicans and sinners, replied to the fault-finding 
Pharisees: "They that be whole need not a physician, but 
they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, 
/ will have mercy and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call 
the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (St. Mt. 18:23-35). 

But again we hear: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they 
shall see God." The heart, according to the Hebrew usage, 
signified the personality, the inmost self. Originally, the refer- 
ence was to the bodily organ, which was thought of by the 
ancients as the seat of life. What Jesus means, therefore, is 
that blessed are those whose personality, or inmost self, is free 
from all heterogeneous and extraneous elements, who enjoy an 
unalloyed condition of thought and feeling, in whom world- 
liness, materialism or false religion have not wrought their 



88 Jesus' Idea 

baneful work. Where this unalloyed condition of the heart 
exists, there is the vision of God. Not, of course, that God 
can be seen with the physical eye; His existence and presence 
are spiritually discerned. God, indeed, is only visible to the 
inward eye, and the vision of Him and of eternity, depends 
rather upon cleanness of heart than clearness of intellect. 

Further we read: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they 
shall be called the children of God." It is probable that two 
ideas of "the peacemakers" are included in this Beatitude: 
the peaceable — the passive sense: the workers for peace — the 
active sense. Jesus Christ, however, is the great examplar 
of both — "The Prince of Peace." In Him, man finds peace 
with himself, with his God, and with his fellow-man. Yet 
there is a darker side. It is Jesus Himself who says: "Think 
not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to 
send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at vari- 
ance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, 
and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a 
man's foes shall be they of his own household" (St. Mt. 
10:34-36). But how is this to be explained? The answer is 
at hand. It is this: There can be no permanent peace save 
that of the kingdom, or rule of God. This is true of the 
individual life, and of the social life of the world. God 
and Satan, indeed, can never be at peace. This world is not, 
as yet, in its entirety God's Kingdom. Hence Jesus, the 
Apostles, and true Christians everywhere, though essentially 
peaceable and peacemakers, are the authors of strife — a strife 
of good with evil, of truth with error. Thus among the 
peacemakers of the earth such men as Luther, Calvin, Savon- 
arola, Wesley, and many others whose very names are synony- 
mous with agitation and even revolution, must take high rank. 
And more and more to-day are those who seek to bring peace 
into the world, even at the cost of strife, being recognized as 
the children of God. They resemble Him at least in their 
striving for peace. 

Finally, we are told that: "Blessed are they which are per- 
secuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and per- 
secute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, 
for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 89 

jour reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 
which w T ere before you." Persecution, indeed, is the inevitable 
accompaniment of righteousness. Loyalty to God and the 
right in a sinful world always begets opposition. Experience 
had taught Israel this truth, and many of her greatest men are 
immortal illustrations of the fact. The history of the early 
Church also offers convincing testimony to the foresight of 
Jesus, while the conditions of to-day in many respects attest 
His truthfulness. The persecution is now different in kind, 
it is true, and perhaps less in extent, but it is none the less 
real, and often in its refinement and ingenuousness it bespeaks 
Satanic device. As it was with the Master, so it is with the 
servant (Heb. 11:33-40). And yet to the persecuted belongs 
the Kingdom: "theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 

This unequivocal teaching gave to the Jews a shock and a 
surprise as great as it gives to thousands to-day. Fortunate, 
blessed are the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, the 
hungry and the thirsty for righteousness, the merciful, the pure 
in heart, the peacemakers, the persecuted! Men cannot be- 
lieve it. Usually the possessors of the opposite characteristics 
are regarded as earth's fortunate and blessed. Hence men ask 
again and again — How are these fortunate? And Jesus re- 
plies, as we have seen: To them belongs the Kingdom of 
God. Now, bearing in mind that the Kingdom of God is 
the doing of God's will, is it not profoundly true that this 
is possible only to the poor in spirit, to those who feel their 
unworthiness ? Who are the obedient to God, and, in their 
obedience, the comforted, but those who mourn for their 
quondam disobedience, and the shortcomings of the world ? Who 
really inherit the earth — all its truest and highest gifts and 
pleasures — but the meek, the tractable, the submissive finder 
and follower of God's way? While those who hunger and 
thirst after righteousness seek for perfect conformity to God's 
will — and are they not of all men truly filled with the mean- 
ing of life, and satisfied with it? 

To illustrate more fully, however, the truthfulness and the 
significance of Our Lord's words, let us note the vices of 
which the Beatitudes are the corresponding virtues, and see 
how the possession of these renders entrance into the Kingdom 
impossible. Pride is the opposite of humility; self-satisfaction, 



90 Jesus' Idea 

of mourning; refractoriness, of meekness; lethargy and apathy, 
of hungering and thirsting after righteousness; unfeelingness, 
of mercy; alloy of heart, of purity of heart; strivers, of peace- 
makers; ready compliance with the world-principles, of persecu- 
tion for righteousness' sake. Now is it not uniformly true that 
the arrogant man is not the doer of God's will? The self- 
sufficient man feels no need of obedience; refractoriness in its 
rebellious spirit cannot submit; lethargy knows no craving; 
while unfeelingness cannot enter into the pity and compassion 
of God. Those whose hearts are admixed with a love of the 
world cannot perceive God's simplicity of aim and motive; 
and mere strivers are unable to appreciate the Kingdom, in 
and through which God is endeavoring to replace human strife 
by "peace on earth, good will among men." Those, also, who 
are not persecuted in some way for righteousness' sake, indicate 
their conformity to the world by this immunity — an immunity 
utterly impossible to those in the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Thus we see that the Kingdom of God does not belong to an 
individual in view of who he is, or what he has, but solely in 
view of what he is; further, that a man's true happiness and 
prosperity is determined by his relation to the Kingdom, or 
his submission to God's obedience. Thie idea is extremely 
revolutionary in every age. It explains much, however, in 
Jesus' teaching. Because the individual is the unit of the 
Kingdom of God, and the gateway to the Kingdom lies along 
the pathway of character, Jesus so assiduously emphasized 
the value of the inner life. Anything which was likely to 
militate against this, finds in Him an uncompromising antag- 
onist. It was for this reason that He remarked sorrowfully 
after the departure of the rich young ruler: "Verily, I say unto 
you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of 
heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to 
go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter 
into the kingdom of God" (St. Mt. 19:23-24). Yet riches 
in themselves are never denounced by Jesus, although He does 
apparently regard their possession as likely to prove a mis- 
fortune. And indeed the study of a rich man is often a study 
in unlovely personality. 1 

x The great danger in the possession of riches is clearly indicated 
by Jesus in St. Mk. 10:24: "How hard is it for them that trust in 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 91 

Riches, however, may be used by their possessors to min- 
ister to their eternal gain. Clearly is this pointed out in the 
Parable of the Unjust Steward (St. Luke 16: 1-9). The moral 
of this parable is found in the ninth verse: "And I say unto 
you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unright- 
eousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into ever- 
lasting habitations." Mammon, however, is not the name of 
a God; it is simply money. The passage then reads: "Make to 
yourselves friends of the money of unrighteousness; that when 
ye fail (i.e., die) they may receive you into everlasting habi- 
tations." Yet even here we notice that it is called "the money 
of unrighteousness," because unrighteous means are frequently 
employed in its acquisition, or because its possession often min- 
isters to unrighteousness of heart and life. "Ye cannot serve 
God and mammon" — Jesus says also in the Sermon on the 
Mount. Thus riches are always likely to be opposed to God, 
and, therefore, to His Kingdom. 

How they become accursed, Jesus has revealed in the salient 
lessons of the selfishness, the self-indulgence, and the indiffer- 
ence to God and man exhibited by rich men in the parables 
of Dives and Lazarus and the Rich Fool. It is often vulgarly, 
if truly, remarked of persons "that their money has made 
fools of them." Jesus makes the same remark, without suspi- 
cion of vulgarity, but with perfect truthfulness, in the second 
of these parables (St. Lu. 12: 16-21). The word "fool" in 
the Bible, however, does not refer primarily to mental but to 
spiritual deficiency. The fool of the Bible is not the brainless 
but the heartless man; the word bears the sting of death, for 
it is sin. The fool of this parable had no doubt displayed ability 

riches to enter into the kingdom of God." Unless we remember the 
assault that wealth makes upon character, we shall utterly misap- 
prehend the constant teaching of the Master about riches. No pas- 
sages of the New Testament certainly more forcibly reveal the 
inward and essentially subjective character of the Kingdom than 
those which have wealth for their subject. It has never been so 
difficult for a rich man to enter into the visible Church as to justify 
the strong declaration of Our Lord cited above. The Kingdom in 
Jesus' view, however, was submission to God's obedience. Hence it 
is so difficult as to be practically impossible for the rich man to 
enter the Kingdom because of the inordinate trust in money, instead 
of trust in God, which riches usually beget, and out of which the 
grace of God alone can deliver. "With men it is impossible, but not 
with God: for with God all things are possible" (St. Mk. 10:27). 



92 Jesus' Idea 

of a high order in the amassing of his fortune; by the world, 
he was probably accounted sharp and shrewd. Yet Jesus called 
him "a fool." His meaning may be gathered from Psalm 53 : 1 
— "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." In his 
heart means in his personality, his life, as we have seen. From 
these, he excludes God. This, in fact, is often the result of 
wealth. While in the first of these parables we see the effect 
of a self-indulgence which wealth makes possible, in Dives' feast- 
ing while Lazarus starves at the door. Riches, indeed, often 
close the door to mercy. The money which seems to make a 
man is very likely to unmake him. Note the almost proverbial 
worthlessness of rich men's sons, and the general pitiableness 
of a wealthy aristocracy's inconsequential scions. Whereas 
poverty begetting piety is often the preparation for greatness. 
Riches, however, are relative. There is no absolute standard 
to determine who is a rich man. In possessions, great or small, 
lies the danger; although the greatness of the possessions always 
increase the danger to the soul. 

Thus Jesus taught the essential qualifications for member- 
ship in the Kingdom of Heaven. In contrast with the popular 
Jewish view, the qualifications are individual and personal, 
not racial or national; they belong to the spiritual, not to the 
natural man. These qualities were not popular with the Jews, 
and they have not been pleasing to the mass of men in any 
age; for humanity has always admired the more robust and 
masterful qualities, as it affects to call them, although robustness 
and masterfulness are the very essence of the qualities demanded 
by Jesus when they are rightly understood. Unpalatable, how- 
ever, at all times, how bitter must they have been to a people 
whose dream was of an earthly Kingdom, which should sup- 
plant Imperial Rome and surpass her splendor. Small wonder 
that Jesus was misunderstood and hated. 

Jesus, however, was a supreme logician. These characteris- 
tics were a logical deduction from His idea of God. Seated 
near Jacob's well at Sychar, only a short while before His 
delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, and conversing with the 
Samaritan woman, Jesus revealed His idea of the essential na- 
ture of God. To the woman, perplexed as to the question 
whether God should be worshiped at Jerusalem, as the Jews 
asserted, or on Mt. Gerizim, as the Samaritans contended, Jesus 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 93 

replies: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall 
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the 
Father. . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true 
worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for 
the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is spirit: and 
they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" 
(St. Jn. 4: 21-24). These words indeed are the Magna Charta 
of the soul's liberties throughout all the ages. They are the 
very Emancipation Proclamation of the human spirit. But what 
do they signify? 

"God is spirit," means that God is a Personal Being. We 
are spirits, or personal beings, in that we think and feel and 
will: it is the possession of these faculties that makes one a 
person. Man is thus made in the image of God. Hence, God 
being a Person — thinking, feeling and willing — it follows, ac- 
cording to the reasoning of Jesus, that true worshipers of God 
must worship Him in spirit and in truth, i.e., in that part of 
their being which corresponds to God's Being — the spirit: that 
which thinks and feels and wills. Further, they must worship 
Him in a way which corresponds to the Divine nature, for 
this is the meaning of the words "in truth." 

The worship of God is thus dissociated by Jesus from all 
limitations of time and place, and associated only with the heart 
of man, in that which thinks and feels and wills. Not the ritual 
of worship nor of deeds primarily, not the dogma of stereotyped 
belief, but the bestowal of the spirit of the inner man is what 
God demands as essential to true worship. Being, rather than 
believing or doing, receives the Divine emphasis. Out of this 
essential nature of God indeed, Jesus' idea of the Kingdom and 
its subjects unfolds as naturally as the ear from the blade, the 
lily from the bud. The Kingdom or rule of God must mean 
for the individual — the submission of the spirit — the self, to 
God; and, of course, the subjects of the Kingdom must be those 
whose spirits brook this submission. Humility is thus the first 
rung in the ladder by which the true worshiper climbs heaven- 
ward; it is the prologue to spiritual progress. 1 

1 How the spirit of the Kingdom, or of true worship, expresses 
itself both toward God and man, Jesus illustrates in the exquisite 
teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. More admirable than any 
commentary is the Sermon itself, and just here the reader is asked 
to read the Sermon in its entirety. 



94 Jesus' Idea 

Thus, with Jesus, we return to the conception of the King- 
dom, as it existed in the mind of God from all eternity: A 
Kingdom of God in humanity, a conscious and willing obedi- 
ence; a conception ruthlessly rejected in the rebellion of man- 
kind, but now seeking realization through Jesus of Nazareth. 
Having noted the condition of entrance into the Kingdom, and 
the predisposing qualifications, we will now consider briefly 
the salient duty of the subjects of the Kingdom. 

While membership in the Kingdom confers great privileges 
and blessings, it also entails great responsibilities and duties. 
In fact, as soon as Jesus had disclosed the blessing inherent in 
membership, He supplemented it with an explicit statement of 
the duty involved. The members of the Kingdom were to be 
the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. In rejecting 
the popular Jewish conception of the Kingdom, Jesus did not 
reject the idea of a rule by conquest. His was to be a conquer- 
ing Kingdom. The apparently negative virtues which He de- 
manded, however, seemed to the Jews, enamored of the idea 
of forcible conquest, utterly incapable of winning a Kingdom. 
If Jesus was to found a Kingdom — how was it to be extended? 
That was a perplexing question. The idea of conquest, how- 
ever, had always been present in the concept of the Kingdom, 
as we have seen. The family or clan, during the Patriarchal 
period, had been selected with the view of conquering humanity 
by blessing it. The nation was chosen at Sinai as a kingdom 
of priests to reconcile men to God. This thought also had 
ever been a part of the prophetic teaching. In view of this, 
and the perplexity of the Jews, we are not surprised to find 
Jesus dwelling with especial emphasis upon the vast responsibility 
of the subjects of the Kingdom toward the world. 1 

The idea of a forcible conquest of the world, however, had 
been met in the Temptation with the ideal of a bloodless con- 
quest through truth and love. The weapons of war were dis- 

1 Ye are the salt of the earth : but if the salt has lost its savor, 
wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but 
to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the 
light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither 
do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candle- 
stick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your 
light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and 
glorify your father which is in heaven" (St. Mt. 5:13-16). 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 95 

carded for those of peace. This becomes conspicuously apparent 
as Jesus sets forth the duty of the Kingdom's subjects. 

First is the duty of illuminating the dense darkness of the 
world by the light of God's truth, as it is revealed in the words 
and deeds of the individual subjects of the Kingdom. 

"Heaven doth with us as we with torches do, 
Not light them for themselves : for if our virtues 
Did not go forth of us, 'twere all alike 
As if we had them not. Spirits are not finely touched 
But to fine issues." 

The Kingdom of God, indeed, is truth: "the Truth" about 
God and Man and Life (St. Jn. 18:37), and Jesus trusted 
absolutely in the self-propagating power of this truth, as we 
shall see more fully in our next Chapter. Indeed, the truth 
of God and the heart of man are adapted each for the other, 
and are mutually complementary. This sublime confidence ex- 
presses Jesus' whole life. He lived and died for the truth. In 
fact, the sublime confidence of Jesus in the winning power of 
truth is well expressed by the Poet: 

"Truth only needs to be for once spoke out, 
And there's such music in her, such strange rhythm, 
As makes men's memories her joyous slaves, 
And clings around the soul, as the sky clings 
Round the mute earth, forever beautiful, 
And, if o'erclouded, only to burst forth 
More all embracingly divine and clear : 
Get but the truth once uttered, and 'tis like 
A star new-born, that drops into its place, 
And which, once circling in its placid round, 
Not all the tumult of the earth can shake." 

However, it should not be overlooked that in the extension 
of the Kingdom there is a supernatural factor. Christianity, 
indeed, always unites Heaven and earth, even in its agencies 
of extension. It is both an ideal of life and a power in life. 
Hence we expect a supernatural element. Man, however, has 
his part no less than God. Man wields the mighty weapon of 
truth in word and deed. It is the seed which he sows. In 
itself, as we have seen, it is adapted to the soil of the human 
heart and the soil is suited to it. Yet, as the seed demands 
sunshine and rain, and much else for its growth, so the seed 



g6 Jesus' Idea 

of truth, sown by man, needs for its germination, growth and 
fruitage, the operation of the Holy Spirit. We are not, how- 
ever, considering the supernatural, but the human factor in 
the extension of the Kingdom. 

The antiseptic properties of salt, Our Lord brings before 
the subjects of the Kingdom, also, to illustrate their duty in 
preventing corruption in human life. As salt is also used to 
extract flavors, so the Kingdom's subjects are to extract from 
life all that is sweetest in it, to exercise a freshening influence 
upon the moral, the intellectual, and the social life of the world, 
and to give to everything its true flavor. Hence, whether the 
Kingdom and its subjects act openly like Light, or secretly like 
Salt, the Kingdom is to be a conquering Kingdom. Its subjects 
are to illumine the world's darkness, to preserve it from further 
corruption, and to extract what is sweetest in life. Thus the 
duty is clearly imposed; but how, more specifically, shall it be 
fulfilled? 

The answer to this question constitutes one of Christianity's 
many startling paradoxes — conquest by submission; victory 
through defeat; the Crown through the Cross; priesthood 
through sacrifice of self; Reconciliation through priesthood. It 
has been said that "Christianity, the true Christianity, carries 
no arms; it wins its way by lowly service, by patience, and by 
self-sacrifice." These were undoubtedly the successful weapons 
of its earlier warfare, and they have ever been the means of 
Christianity's triumphs where permanent conquests have been 
made. The power of truth and of self-sacrifice — that is, love — 
whether manifested in life or in death was, and is, the mightiest 
weapon for the establishment of the Kingdom. Jesus, in fact, 
founded the Kingdom by dying for it, no less than by living for 
it. "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men 
unto me," says the Master (St. Jn. 12:32), and the subjects 
of the Kingdom, like their King, must extend the Kingdom by 
similar means. Goodness, indeed, is contagious as well as evil, 
and that which will most quickly fan into flame the slumbering 
spark of divinity latent within every man, is the example of self- 
sacrifice and the personal embodiment of truth. The type of 
character, therefore, developed within the Kingdom of God is 
in itself the most effective agency in the extension of the King- 
dom. Because the character of the subject is of the highest 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 97 

attractiveness and beauty, men are drawn toward the King- 
dom. As Tennyson declares : "We needs must love the highest 
when we see it." The law is apparently inwrought in human 
nature. 

The marvelous effectiveness of this character as a mission- 
ary agency is seen in the homage paid to Jesus among all peo- 
ples. 1 Not only is the effectiveness of this character evidenced, 
however, in the Person of the Kingdom's Founder, it is also 
manifest in the wondrous triumphs won in the first three centu- 
ries of Christianity's existence. These were won in the face 
of a bitterly hostile world, which vented its wrath and opposi- 
tion in the most untiring persecutions, which were continued 
for several centuries, until the alliance of Church and State. 
Beginning with the first persecution of the Christians in Jerusa- 
lem, when the brilliant Stephen was sacrificed to the implacable 
hatred of bigoted Jews, until the close of the last Imperial 
persecution, what weapons could the subjects of the Kingdom 
wield against their bitter foes? None save the sublime appeal 
of truth and of self-sacrifice — more irresistible than all the 
weapons of human ingenuity. They could not use the weapons 
of a carnal warfare. The Master had said : "My Kingdom is 
not of this world; if my Kingdom were of this world, then 
would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the 
Jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence" (St. Jn. 
18:36). The world, indeed, has acknowledged the power of 
this weapon in the saying: "The blood of the martyrs is the 
seed of the Church." 2 

1 While nations have their heroes who receive the plaudits of their 
countrymen, and even a single _ nation may furnish a hero to the 
world whose fame outgrows national or even racial limitations, there 
is only One whose name is above every name and who receives the 
homage of all men, irrespective of clime, or race, or age. This 
exalted position is accorded the Galilean Peasant, at least by 
thoughtful minds, chiefly because of the simplicity and the beauty 
of His life of love and service — a life crowned and adorned with 
the cruel Cross of Calvary. The sublimity of His Life and Death 
has ever riveted the attention of men, and prompted their glad 
acclaim — "My Lord and My God." 

'We are not amazed, then, to find Tertullian, about 220 A. D., 
testifying to the widespread diffusion of Christianity, or extension 
of the Kingdom. After making every allowance for rhetorical effect 
and the enthusiasm of the advocate, there is a large element of 
truth in the passage: "For whom have the nations believed— 



9 8 Jesus' Idea 

That Jesus was justified then in the selection of these 
weapons, the testimony of ages attests. Men and women were 
to be brought to the obedience of God through the proclama- 
tion of truth in word and deed, and by the power of self- 
sacrifice. In turn, they were to become the Light of the World, 
and the Salt of the Earth. Truth, indeed, is Light, and Love 
is Salt. In the Kingdom of God, then, the sole forces on the 
human side are the compelling power of truth, and the appeal- 
ing power of love. By these means alone is the Kingdom of 
God, which had been wrecked by Adam (humanly speaking), 
to be launched by Jesus, the Second Adam, and brought to the 
haven of God's conscious, willing and loving obedience. 

We now see how much more comprehensive and spiritual 
are the Kingdom and its subjects in the view of Jesus than in 
the thought of even the inspired prophets. Yet His view had 
its roots in the past. There was a continuity of thought and 
purpose. These words of St. Peter, for instance, are singu- 
larly reminiscent of those which describe the ancient covenant 
of Israel to which reference has been made. "Ye also, as lively 
stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer 
up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. . . . 
Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, 
a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him 
who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: 

Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, 
Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and they who dwell in Pontus, and 
Asia, and Pamphylia, tarriers in Egypt, and inhabiters of the regions 
of Africa which is beyond Cyrene, Romans, and sojourners, yes, 
and in Jerusalem, Jews and all other nations, as for instance by this 
time, the varied races of the Gaetulians, and manifold confines of 
the Moors, all the limits of Spain, and the diverse nations of the 
Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons (inaccessible to the Romans, 
but subjugated to Christ), and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians, and 
Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, in all of 
which places the name of Christ who is already come, reigns as 
of him before whom the gates of all cities have been opened." Nor 
were the Kingdom's weapons of Truth and Self-sacrifice of avail 
only in reaching one or two classes, for Tertullian again testifies 
to the diversified character of the Kingdom's subjects: "The outcry 
is that the State is filled with Christians, that they are in the fields, 
in the citadels, in the islands; they make lamentation as for some 
calamity, that both sexes, every age and condition, even high rank 
are passing over to the profession of the Christian faith." 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 99 

which in time past were not a people, but are now the people 
of God" (St. Pet. 2: 5, 9, 10). The Subjects of the Kingdom, 
indeed, as well as the Chosen People, were destined to be a Holy 
Nation — a Kingdom of Priests. 

We cannot leave this subject without cursory reference to 
the question of rank in the Kingdom of God. The Jewish mind, 
vitiated by materialistic tendencies, pictured a temporal King, 
and an earthly court with courtiers of every kind and degree. 
The Kingdom of God was simply a Kingdom of the world much 
magnified. In contrast to the gradations of court-life, with 
their accompanying conventionality, artificiality, and insincerity, 
Jesus demanded of his courtiers the simplicity and guilelessness 
of childhood. 1 Such abstract teaching as this, however, was 
not sufficient to overcome the inveterate ideas and expectations 
of the disciples. More concrete illustration was demanded. 
Old ideas die hard. Hence we read of that singular interview 
of James and John with Jesus as they seek high place in the 
Kingdom. 2 

1 "And he came to Capernaum : and being in the house, he asked 
them, What is it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 
But they held their peace : for by the way they had disputed among 
themselves who should be the greatest. And he sat down and called 
the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be the first, the 
same shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a child 
and set him in the midst of them" (St. Mk. 9:33-35). 

2 "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, 
saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever 
we desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do 
for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one 
on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy glory. But Jesus 
said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup 
that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am bap- 
tized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said 
unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ; and 
with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized : 
But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to 
give : but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And 
when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with James 
and John. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye 
know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exer- 
cise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority 
upon them. But not so shall it be among you : but whosoever will 
be great among you, shall be your minister : And whosoever of you 
will be the chiefest, shall be the servant of all. For even the Son of 
Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 



ioo Jesus* Idea 

The Kingdom itself, however, is infinitely more than posi- 
tion, honor and adulation. Lobbying, too, as we see from this 
incident, is never successful in the Kingdom, although it is 
often very successful in the Christian Church. In the King- 
dom, indeed, the most stringent Civil Service prevails. The 
position always corresponds absolutely to the personal fitness 
for the position. There are no misfits. There is no officialdom. 
Sycophancy and nepotism have no portion there. On the God- 
ward side, indeed, the Kingdom is an absolute Monarchy; on 
the Manward side, it is the purest of Republics ; it is the essence 
of democracy, and its highest positions are open to all its sub- 
jects alike, and are gained alone through service and merit. 

To emphasize the lofty character of service in the Kingdom 
of God, Jesus washed the feet of the disciples at the Passover 
Supper. Resuming His seat, His words indicate the significance 
of the act. 1 This indeed is a splendid lesson in humility. To 
regard the Master's action as the institution of a rite which 
is obligatory upon all Christians is, of course, to pervert the 
meaning of the act. The principle is infinitely more impor- 
tant than the action itself, and the principle established is that 
of greatness through service; the idea, that greatness is not 
inconsistent with the lowliest service. 

"Wouldst thou the holy hill ascend 
And see the Father's face 
To all His children lowly bend 
And seek the lowest place. 

his life a ransom for many" (St. Mk. 10:35-45). The import of 
this passage is apparent. 

St. Matthew gives substantially the same interview, with one 
difference, however. It is the mother of Zebedee's children who 
comes with her sons and desires high position in the Kingdom (St. 
Mt. 20:20-28). She is thus the first of many mothers who desire 
preferment for their sons, and ignore the salient fact that prefer- 
ment in the Kingdom of God comes only through a life of lowly 
service, and by drinking the cup of bitterness and sorrow, which is 
the portion of every prophet of the Living God. 

1 "Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am. 
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also 
ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, 
that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, Verily, I say 
unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord ; neither he that 
is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, 
happy are ye if ye do them" (St. Jn. 13:13-17). 



The Subjects of the Kingdom 101 

Thus humbly doing on the earth 

What things the earthly scorn, 
Thou shalt assert the lofty birth 

Of all the lowly born." 

Ambition, indeed, unless it is the desire to become great 
through service of mankind, is a mark of littleness. It is 
simply selfishness which would use others for personal ends. 
And selfishness is the opposite of the Kingdom of God. 

To illustrate further how selfishness defeats its own ends, 
and to warn against it, Jesus spoke the very suggestive Parable 
of the Laborers in the Vineyard (St. Mt. 19: 27 and 20: 1-16). 
Saint Peter expected great things because he had forsaken all 
and followed Jesus. With quick incisiveness we hear this para- 
ble with its keen rebuke of St. Peter's self-seeking, and its 
unmistakable warning in the words: "So the last shall be first, 
and the first last, for many be called but few chosen." The 
great lesson of the parable is this. The Kingdom of God in the 
reward given to its subjects for service so far transcends the 
sphere of ordinary business life that whatever is given to the 
most ardent, and to the first laborer, so greatly exceeds all that 
he could earn or demand as the result of service that no injus- 
tice is done him if the Master sees fit to give a like reward to 
those who have wrought only one hour. Failure to recognize 
this, and the endeavor to introduce the eminently Jewish and 
commercial spirit — quid pro quo — into the Kingdom, might 
make Peter verily the last instead of the first, for the Kingdom 
is love of others, not of self. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE KINGDOM'S METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT 

We recall that two features were brought forward promi- 
nently by the Jews in regard to the coming of the Kingdom of 
God : The hated Roman yoke was to be cast off, and the world's 
sovereignty transferred from Rome to Israel. This would be 
brought about by some catastrophe or cataclysm. Hence the 
inauguration of the Kingdom was popularly conceived as sud- 
den, and its consummation as a matter of a little while. 1 Jesus, 
however, much to the surprise and disgust of the Jews, compared 
the development of the Kingdom ( I ) to the growth of a seed 
in method; (2) to that of a mustard seed in result; and (3) to 
the fermentation of leaven for the manner of its intensive 
development. 

To the popular conception of the sudden and dazzling advent 
of the Kingdom and its rapid extension, Jesus, in fact, opposed 
the vital process of growth. His analogy was that of a seed 
planted by a gardener, who simply sows his seed, and sleeping 
by night and working by day, is without worry and appar- 

1 Traces of this view are often met with in the New Testament. 
Jesus, asked by the Pharisees, "When the Kingdom of God should 
come?" replied: "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
tion; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the 
Kingdom of God is within you," or in the midst of you (St. Lu. 
17:20, 21). After the Resurrection, also, the disciples say, "We 
hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel" (St. Lu. 24:21), 
having in mind the immediate introduction of the Kingdom. During 
the forty days also between the Resurrection and the Ascension, the 
question asked directly by the Apostles was, "Lord, dost thou at 
this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). We are 
surprised to encounter this strange ignorance of the character of the 
Kingdom at the close of Jesus' ministry, and after His years of 
teaching and the Apostles' intimate association with Him. It only 
proves, however, that Jesus' idea of the Kingdom and its method 
of establishment was "so wholly out of line with the ambitions and 
expectations of the Jewish people" that only by the greatest effort 
could they grasp His teaching. 

102 



The Kingdom's Method of Development 103 

ently indifferent to its fate. Yet, because of the inherent char- 
acter of the seed, and the inherent nature of the soil, and their 
mutual adaptability, the seed germinates and grows, the gar- 
dener knows not how. "And he said, so is the kingdom of God, 
as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep 
and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, 
he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of 
herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in 
the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he 
putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come" (St. Mk. 
4:26-30). 

The seed, of course, in this parable is the idea of the King- 
dom, or rule of God, and the soil into which this idea is sown 
is the human heart. Then, because of the mutual fitness of 
the seed and the soil, the seed germinates and grows. This 
was novel teaching to the Jews, and it struck a fatal blow at 
the prevalent opinion. Its significance, indeed, was unmistak- 
able. It meant that the mechanical conception of the develop- 
ment of the Kingdom must give place to the vital. Henceforth 
growth was the fundamental law. When we recall, however, 
the inward and spiritual nature of the Kingdom, as it was 
conceived by Jesus, we appreciate readily the analogy. He 
taught, and He must necessarily have taught, that the ascend- 
ency of God's rule over the heart of man, and over the world 
of man, would be like the slow and unobserved, but sure, growth 
of the planted seed. "First the blade, then the ear, then the 
full corn in the ear:" "So is the Kingdom of God." 

Further, once planted, the idea of the Kingdom — God's rule 
being needful to man, and man recognizing the need of God's 
sovereignty — will grow slowly and quietly, apart from human 
anxiety. Hence the Kingdom did not demand forcing, as the 
Jews supposed. No temporal arm of the State upon which to 
lean was necessary; nor were the favorite methods of the 
ecclesiastic "in preserving the faith" in vogue with Jesus. Re- 
liance, so far as human effort was concerned, was placed simply 
upon planting; and this being done, the self-propagating power 
of truth, in conjunction with the vitalizing power of the human 
heart, became the active agent. "The earth bringeth forth fruit 
of herself." 

Nothing could have been further, however, from the Jewish 



104 Jesus' Idea 

mind than such a conception. The Apocalyptic idea, indeed, 
has vanished in a moment, and Nature is at hand. Nature, in 
fact, has become the parable of the Kingdom of God. This 
substitution, effected so quietly by Jesus, was fraught, however, 
with vast results for the idea of the Kingdom. It compelled 
forthwith the entire reconstruction of Jewish thought; it was 
the rock upon which long-standing hope and expectation was 
dashed in pieces. How momentous its conclusions were may be 
gathered from the principles outstanding in the parable. The 
three fundamental truths derived are: First, that the Kingdom 
of God has a self-propagating power; second, that it grows 
silently and unobservedly ; and, third, that it has an orderly 
sequence of growth: the early stages being preparatory to the 
consummation. The Apostles, strange to relate, even the bril- 
liant and profound Paul, failed to understand this, and we find 
them, in common with the entire Apostolic Church, looking for 
the speedy consummation of the Kingdom, as the reader may see 
from a perusal of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Their 
failure to appreciate the Kingdom's analogy of growth is par- 
donable, however, in view of their strenuous devotion to the 
mechanical conception of the Apocalyptic literature. 

But the Jews dreamed, also, of the Kingdom's inauguration 
amidst pomp and splendor, and this expectation was in full 
accord with human nature, which usually demands that all un- 
dertakings of importance shall be launched amid attention and 
furor. This thought, indeed, was present even to the mind of 
Jesus in the temptation to cast Himself from the pinnacle of 
the Temple, as we have seen. It was necessary for Jesus, how- 
ever, in view of His decision in the Wilderness, to violate at 
every point the most cherished traditions of the Jews. Hence, 
He not only likened the development of the Kingdom to the 
growth of a seed, but selected specifically the mustard seed. 
This was a very small seed; so small, indeed, that it had fur- 
nished a proverbial expression to the Jews. When they desired 
to signify the minuteness of anything, it was customary to speak 
of it as being as "small as a grain of mustard seed." Jesus, 
Himself, seems to have been aware of this usage, if we may 
judge from His remark that if the disciples had "faith as a 
grain of mustard seed," nothing would be impossible to them 
(St. Mt. 17:20). "Another parable put he forth unto them, 



The Kingdom's Method of Development 105 

saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard 
seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; Which indeed 
is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the great- 
est among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the 
air come and lodge in the branches thereof" (St. Mt. 13 : 31-32; 
cf. St. Mk. 4:30-32; St. Lu. 13: 18-19). 

By this parable Jesus indicated an additional characteristic 
of the Kingdom of Heaven. The seed, which was the most 
insignificant of all seeds, grew into the largest of annual gar- 
den shrubs. The Mustard Tree was not, properly speaking, 
a tree, as is sometimes supposed, but a large shrub, such being 
called trees among Orientals. The plant, indeed, grew with 
remarkable rapidity, and often attained the height of ten or 
twelve feet, with widely extending branches, which offered 
attraction for the passing birds in way of shelter, rest and food ; 
the mustard being a common food for pigeons. Hence it was 
selected by Jesus to illustrate the noticeably disproportionate 
result between a beginning and an end, between the tiny seed, 
so insignificant and unpromising in itself, and the ultimate 
luxuriant growth. 

It is also interesting to observe that a favorite figure adopted 
among the Biblical writers to illustrate the development of 
various Oriental kingdoms was that of a growing tree. The 
reference of Ezekiel 31: 3, 9 to the Assyrian kingdom, and of 
Daniel 4:10, 12, are excellent examples of this tendency. The 
development of the Kingdom of God itself was also so illus- 
trated (Ez. 17:22, 24; Ps. 80:8). It is noticeable, however, 
that the figure adopted is always that of a luxuriant vine, a 
stately cedar, or some imposing tree, such an analogy being alone 
deemed worthy for the great kingdoms of the earth, or the 
Kingdom of God. Hence, the comparison of the Kingdom in 
its beginning and development to the small grain of mustard 
by Jesus is the more marked. 

This analogy, however, served Jesus' purpose admirably. 
For what beginning could have been more insignificant than the 
beginning of the Kingdom of God in the person of Jesus of 
Nazareth? A peasant carpenter of a despised province; poor 
and unknown until His thirtieth year, when He began to teach; 
only creating a ripple on the surface of His nation's life; with 
friends recruited chiefly among the humble, the ignorant, the 



106 Jesus' Idea 

outcast, or at most among the middle class, and arousing ani- 
mosity everywhere, soon or late, instead of making friends, 
Jesus appeared a poor advocate of any cause, especially of one 
so important as the Kingdom of God. Finally, with the Cross, 
it looked, indeed, as though the fiasco was ended. Yet there 
soon followed the comparatively rapid spread of Christianity 
throughout the then known world, and the greatness of the 
results achieved, human society being affected at well-nigh every 
point, and conditioned in its every aspect. This, however, is the 
parable of the mustard-seed. The Kingdom of God in one life 
— and that a seemingly insignificant one — develops into a result 
out of all proportion to the small beginning. 

Thus, Jesus' sole purpose in this parable was to indicate 
that the beginning of the Kingdom, contrary to all Jewish 
expectation, would be insignificant and unpromising; that, not- 
withstanding this, the Kingdom would develop according to its 
own inherent method, and would be ultimately crowned with 
a magnificent consummation, ever more and more inducing men 
to seek its salutary rest, shelter and sustenance. The wide, 
extending branches of the Mustard Tree would be understood 
in this sense, in view of the similar use of the Old Testament 
(Ezek. 17: 22-24). 

Again, however, Jesus found it necessary to oppose a promi- 
nent feature of the current Jewish conception. According to the 
thought of His day, the Kingdom would be developed by 
external means. The method would be from the outward to 
the inward. At the point of the sword, for instance, God's law 
was to be written upon the hearts of the Gentile world. 
Through ceremonialism and an elaborate cultus, even the Jew 
was to be made inwardly righteous. This conception Jesus abso- 
lutely and unhesitatingly reversed. "And again he said, Where- 
unto shall I liken the Kingdom of God ? It is like leaven, which 
a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole 
was leavened" (St. Lu. 13:20-21; St. Mt. 13:33). 

Leaven is used here by Jesus to symbolize "the unseen influ- 
ence and penetrating power of the Kingdom of Heaven." This 
use of the word, however, is somewhat singular, inasmuch as 
in almost all other New Testament passages leaven is used in 
an evil sense. The words of Plutarch, indeed, reveal the popu- 
lar idea of leaven in the Ancient world. "Now leaven is itself 



The Kingdom's Method of Development 107 

the offspring of corruption, and corrupts the mass of dough with 
which it has been mixed." Jesus, Himself, also warned the dis- 
ciples on one occasion to beware of the leaven of the 
Pharisees and the Sadducees (St. Mt. 16: 6-12), and of Herod 
(St. Mk. 8:15). The word is also used by St. Paul in 
Gal. 3:9, and 1st Cor. 5:6-8, of bad qualities which are to 
be avoided. "Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may 
be a new lump." By rabbinical writers the word was also used 
in much the same way. "Rabbi Alexander, when he had finished 
his prayers, said: Lord of the universe, it is clearly manifest 
before thee that it is our will to do thy will; What hinders 
that we do not thy will? The leaven which is in the dough," 
i.e., "the evil impulse which is in the heart." This constant 
use of "leaven" in an evil sense has led some to insist upon 
attaching a bad signification to the word as used here by Jesus. 
They make it prophetic, for instance, "of the heresies and cor- 
ruption which should mingle with and adulterate the pure doc- 
trine of the Gospel." Jesus, however, distinctly says that the 
Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven : not that there are pernicious 
tendencies within the Kingdom which act like leaven. 

This analogy, indeed, Jesus adopted most fittingly because it 
disclosed another distinctive element in His conception of the 
Kingdom. He was not busied with the good or evil character of 
leaven, but with its peculiar, intensive, energizing, and perme- 
ating power. Leaven illustrated, in His thought, the mysterious 
influence to be exerted by the Kingdom of God on that with 
which it should come in contact. Once introduced into the 
world, although trivial and hidden, the Kingdom would work 
from within, and with silent operation, yet none the less ef- 
fectively. This fact is well illustrated in the early history of 
Christianity. Obscure, unknown to the mass of men, and well- 
nigh unmentioned by secular writers, but imbedded in the heart 
of human society, Christianity did its effective and quiet work, 
conditioning and transforming, until even Imperial Rome was 
compelled to reckon with it by alliance in the hope of saving 
her tottering sovereignty. The Kingdom was gradually leaven- 
ing the whole lump. 

The individual life itself is also leavened in the same man- 
ner. The end is not attained at once. The idea of the sover- 
eignty of God is introduced into the mind, and accepted by 



108 Jesus' Idea 

the heart, and lies there unseen, but not inactive. Its ener- 
gizing power is quietly affecting the whole man, until the entire 
life shall be leavened for God and for Christ. A little lodg- 
ment affects at first a part, and gradually the whole. A little 
idea finds entrance, and causes the reconstruction of a system 
of both thought and conduct. 

Much, indeed, has been accomplished in the world through 
this leavening process of the Kingdom — how much only few 
begin to realize; but much remains to be accomplished. May 
we not find hope that it will be accomplished in the words, "till 
the whole is leavened"? Perhaps these words are Jesus' proph- 
ecy of the ultimate submission of humanity to God. Who 
knows? At least the achievements of the leaven in the past 
are the open prophecy of still greater triumphs in the future. 

It is now becoming more and more apparent how greatly 
Jesus' ideal of the Kingdom differed from the popular ideal. 
The Jews, in fact, were satisfied with their conception of a 
temporal Kingdom, founded by force, and suddenly triumphant. 
Jesus could entertain only the idea of a spiritual Kingdom, 
growing quietly, and in an orderly manner, from most insignifi- 
cant beginnings to large proportions, and in its development, 
by its peculiar and intrinsic properties, transforming everything 
with which it should come in contact. This method of devel- 
opment, however, was the inevitable and the logical outcome 
of the idea of the Kingdom determined upon by Jesus in the 
Temptation. A spiritual sovereignty over the heart of man 
must be a gradual development. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE WORLD'S RECEPTION OF THE KINGDOM 

In the parables which we have just studied Jesus viewed 
the growth of the Kingdom from the absolute standpoint. He 
considered the normal working of the Kingdom and of the 
human heart. The picture was of the growth of the Kingdom, 
all things being equal. The parables are parables of undaunted 
optimism; they seem to prophesy unconditional success. But 
in this world all things are not equal. Had Jesus stopped with 
these illustrations, His action would have been most unjusti- 
fiable. Indeed, the facts of life and of experience do not sanc- 
tion a vision of such roseate hue. Jesus, however, did not arrest 
the progress of His thought with these parables. The truth of 
the seed, the mustard seed, and the leaven, is rounded out in 
the teaching of the Parables of the Wicked Husbandmen, The 
Marriage of the King's Son, The Barren Fig Tree, the Sower, 
the Two Sons, and the Children Playing in the Market Place. 
In these the development of the Kingdom is considered from 
the relative standpoint. The freedom of the human will is 
treated of as conditioning the growth of the Kingdom. The 
concrete completes and modifies the abstract. 

Jesus, indeed, in speaking of the world's reception of the 
Kingdom, considered its acceptance from three standpoints: the 
national, the individual, and the class. His teaching revealed 
clearly how the sovereignty of God, which He sought to estab- 
lish, would be received by His nation in His own time, and by 
individuals and certain classes in all times. 

The nationality of Jesus, and His love alike, caused Him 
to be interested primarily in the reception which His own nation 
would accord to the Kingdom of God. As the Chosen People, 
they were the natural heirs of the Kingdom, and at the outset 
of His career Jesus probably expected great things of them. 
The lofty mind and the loving heart, indeed, always generate 

109 



no Jesus' Idea 

confidence. For three years He waited hopefully to see what 
they would do, and while disquieting intimations arose from 
time to time, it is only toward the close of His ministry that 
He indicates openly the rejection of the Kingdom by the Jews. 
On the last Tuesday of His earthly life, Jesus expresses Him- 
self fully upon this point. Only a day or two before, He had 
entered into the Holy City, riding upon an ass, a colt, the foal 
of an ass. This was His public acknowledgment of His Mes- 
siahship, in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah (Zech. 
9:9) and the shouting multitude with their Messianic acclaim 
understood well the significance of the act. Yet, despite teach- 
ing, miracle, act, the leaders of the nation would not receive 
Him. His public acknowledgment of His Messiahship, indeed, 
only made His public rejection the more profound and bitter. 
On the day of His entry into Jerusalem the Pharisees had asked 
by what authority He did these things. He confuted them 
by a similar question as to the authority of John the Baptist. 
When they were unable to answer, and thus revealed their 
patent insincerity, in consequence, there came from the very 
depths of the outraged soul of Jesus several parables, two of 
which are the most ominous commentary upon Jewish na- 
tional history conceivable: the parables of the Wicked Hus- 
bandmen and the Marriage of the King's Son, or, as it is 
sometimes called, the Wedding Garment. 1 

These parables were born of the travail of a human soul, for 
Jesus was first, last, and always, a patriot and devoted to 
His race. His patriotism, however, was not blindness to His 
country's faults. On the contrary, His consciousness of His 
countrymen's shortcomings was keen and anguishing in pro- 
portion to the greatness of the love He bore them. It is 
this patriotism, stung to the quick, that speaks in these parables. 2 

x The idea of the garment, however, is subsidiary to the main 
idea of the parable, and certainly should not give name to the 
whole. 

2 The first of these parables is as follows : "Hear another parable : 
There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and 
hedged it round about, and digged a winepress > in it, and built a 
tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 
And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to 
the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the 
husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and 



The World' s Reception of the Kingdom ill 

The interpretation of the first of these parables is as follows. 
The vineyard represented the Chosen People. The husbandmen 
were the leaders to whom God from time to time had en- 
trusted the tutelage of the nation. Planted for the cultivation 
of righteousness and truth, prophet after prophet had been sent 
to demand the vintage. These are the servants, more cor- 
rectly, the slaves of the story. And how splendid is the 
word! The prophet, the slave of God — owned, body, mind, 
and soul; no will of his own — none but his master's. These, 
however, have been rejected, abused again and again, and 
sometimes killed. At last the only Son, the heir, is sent. He, 
of course, was Jesus, and the fruit which He demanded was 
acceptance of the Kingdom. But the husbandmen's greed 
for the inheritance led them to reject and even to kill the 
Son, the last and the chief of God's messengers. The "hedge" 

stoned another. Again he sent other servants more than the first: 
and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them 
his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the hus- 
bandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir ; 
come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they 
caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When 
the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto 
those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy 
those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husband- 
men, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith 
unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which 
the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: 
this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? There- 
fore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And who- 
soever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever 
it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests 
and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that He spake 
of them. And when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared 
the multitude, because they took him for a prophet" (St. Mt. 21 133- 
46). This parable was founded probably upon the fifth chapter of 
Isaiah, in which the prophet compares Israel as a nation to a vine- 
yard : "For the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of 
Israel, and the men of Judah, his pleasant plant; and he looked for 
judgment, but beheld oppression; for righteousness, but beheld a 
cry" (Isa. 5:7). Some of the phrases, indeed, which were used by 
Jesus, were reproduced from this account. Hence the very fa- 
miliarity of His hearers with the illustration probably aroused a 
keen interest and desire to fathom the Master's meaning. This, 
however, was not difficult, for the parable is Jesus' sad commentary 
upon Jewish history. 



H2 Jesus' Idea 

of the parable is thought by some to indicate the Law; the 
wine vat, the altar, and the tower, the temple. This, how- 
ever, is a matter of minor importance. The central truth of 
the parable is the right of God to demand from Israel the fruit 
of holiness and the acceptance of His sovereignty, and the duty 
incumbent upon Israel throughout her entire history to bear 
this fruit. Yet the nation had failed signally. 

Consequently, Jesus asked, "what will become of those hus- 
bandmen?" The Pharisees reply, according to St. Matthew 
(in St. Mark and St. Luke 12:1-12 and 20:9-18, Jesus answers), 
that the Lord will come and destroy those murderers. His 
hearers, indeed, answer aright; they unconsciously pronounce 
their own condemnation to their subsequent confusion and 
shame. Jesus, however, makes the application of the parable 
more pointed. He compares himself to the stone which is 
rejected by the builders, but which nevertheless becomes the 
corner stone. This is a reference to Psalm 118:22, which 
makes Israel, the nation despised and rejected by the Gentiles, 
the very cornerstone of God's relations with the world. The 
words, however, had been applied in later times to the Messiah 
by the Rabbis, hence Jesus' application of them to Himself. 
Further, in view of the nation's repeated rejection of the 
advances of God and its treatment of those through whom 
they were made, especially its murder of the Son and Heir, 
dire punishment was also to be administered. This was actu- 
ally accomplished in the destruction of Jerusalem, the overthrow 
of the leaders of the theocracy, and the fall of the Jewish state 
in A. D. 70. The Kingdom also would be given to others — 
"to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Not, it is 
apparent, to the Gentiles as a whole, or to any specific nation- 
ality, but to a people gathered from many nations, to an 
eclectic nation, — all the subjects of the true Kingdom of God. 
Further, this nation is represented as one already bringing 
forth the fruits of the Kingdom, i. e., possessing the char- 
acteristics indicated in the Beatitudes. Here we see again the 
sublime confidence expressed in the parable of the Seed Growing 
Secretly. If Jewish hearts were hardened against the reception 
of the seed, there were at least human hearts elsewhere which 
would prove congenial soil for the sowing of God's truth. 
Jesus, in fact, had already seen foregleams of this "nation" 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 113 

in the Roman centurion at Capernaum, at whose faith He ex- 
claimed, "I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel" 
(St. Luke 7:1-11), and in the Syro-Phoenician woman, and 
the Samaritans. Such a prophecy as this was certainly madden- 
ing to the Jews, and we read: "When the chief priests and 
Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that he 
spake of them." They feared, however, to prove the absolute 
truthfulness of His portrayal by laying hands on Him then, 
because the multitude took Him for a prophet. 

Jesus, however, speaks another parable. 1 He voices the 
same general truth, but looks at the subject from a different 
standpoint. The thought now is not primarily of right and 
obligation, but of privilege and opportunity. The parable is 
that of the Marriage Feast. 2 The details of this story are 

1 This parable is given more fully in St. Matthew 22:1-14 than in 
St. Mark, or St. Luke 14:16-24, and the context is different. Given 
by St. Matthew immediately after the parable of the Wicked Hus- 
bandmen, it clinches the truth enunciated there. This variance in 
context has given rise to various suppositions. Some think the 
version of St. Luke an imperfect one, which found its way into 
some early document used by him. Others maintain that his version 
is the original, and that in St. Matthew it is combined with another. 
This, however, is speculation. Its idea and position here are emi- 
nently logical. It is, in fact, complementary to the preceding parable. 
The parable itself may have been suggested by Zephaniah 1 :j, 8. 

2 "And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, 
and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which 
made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call 
them that were bidden to the wedding : and they would not come. 
Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are 
bidden, Behold I have prepared my dinner : my oxen and my fat- 
lings are killed, and all things are ready : come unto the marriage. 
But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his farm, 
another to his merchandise : And the remnant took his servants, and 
entreated them spitefully and slew them. But when the king heard 
thereof, he was wroth : And he sent forth his armies, and destroyed 
those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his 
servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were 
not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as 
ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into 
the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both 
bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And 
when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which 
had not on a wedding garment ; And he saith unto him, Friend, 
how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he 
was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand 



ii4 Jesus' Idea 

easily identified. The circumstances of its delivery make clear 
the content. God is the King; Jesus is the groom; His 
marriage is the establishment of the Kingdom. The servants, 
or slaves, are John the Baptist, Jesus perhaps, and the disciples, 
who, now that the marriage is ready, in accordance with the 
Oriental custom summoned those who had been invited pre- 
viously. The invited, of course, are the Jews. Some — the 
majority (vs. 5) — pay no attention whatever to the call; others 
■ — the minority (vs. 6) — are bitter, manifesting open hostility 
and slaying the servants. In consequence the King is angry 
and sends forth his army, destroying the murderers and burn- 
ing their city. This language again is singularly descriptive 
of the fate which overtook the Jews in the destruction of 
Jerusalem in A. D. 70. 

This, however, was not the end of the matter. Pearls 
had been cast before swine; that which was holy had been 
given to dogs. The invited were not worthy, so the servants 
were sent outside the city into the cross-roads (such is the 
meaning of the word) where people were wont to congregate, 
with directions to summon every one to the wedding — good 
and bad alike. The intent here is apparent. The King- 
dom, or sovereignty of God, had come near. Those who had 
been invited, and were expected to avail themselves of the 
privilege — the Chosen People — will not do so. Hence the 
Gentiles, and according to St. Luke's version of the parable, 
the poor and the maimed, the despised and the overlooked in 
Israel, will be summoned to the Feast. All will be called, 
but only those who are qualified for admission will be per- 
mitted to enter. This is the thought suggested by the wedding 
garment. While those venturesome enough to enter without 
suitable attire — righteousness of mind and heart — will be cast 
out amid the wailing of despair and the gnashing of teeth in 
hopeless impotency. Many, indeed, will be called, but few 
chosen. It is interesting to note, also, how closely the proclama- 
tion of the Kingdom to the Gentiles is associated here by 
Jesus with the fall of Jerusalem. 

No more succinct resume of Jewish history could have been 

and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; 
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, 
but few are chosen." 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 115 

given than that which is offered in these parables. Chiefly 
of historical interest, they possess, however, an eternal signifi- 
cance. The illustration is historical, but the principle is eternal. 
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn 
down and cast into the fire." Duty and privilege cannot 
be trifled with on pain of punishment dire and certain. This 
is the saddening burden of the parable; the Jews are the ob- 
ject lesson. The Jew, indeed, is the tragedy of history. 

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, 

Yet He grinds exceeding small, 

Though in patience long He waiteth, 

With exactness grinds He all." 1 

Thus Jesus, toward the close of His life, showed that He was 
well aware that the Chosen People would prove recreant 
to their trust, and unmindful of their privilege to the end. The 
proof lies in these parables of doom, which are at once 
the nation's death note and the Kingdom's paean of vic- 
tory. 

Jesus, however, did not conceive of the acceptance of the 
Kingdom in terms of nationality alone. He also spoke of it 
in terms of individuality. This, in fact, He was compelled 
to do in view of His conception of the Kingdom as primarily 
personal and spiritual. The parable of the Sower is pre- 
eminently the parable of individuality. 2 It is really a psycho- 
logical study. Its position is unique, and its content makes it 

x The rejection of the Kingdom by the Jews is the plaint also of 
the parable of the Barren Fig Tree (St. Mk. 11 120-25). The closing 
words of the parable of the Pounds are also indicative of the same 
truth : "But those mine enemies which would not that I should 
reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (St. Luke 
19:27). 

2 "And he spake many things to them in parables, saying, Behold 
a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed some seeds fell 
by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up : Some 
fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth : and forth- 
with they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And 
when the sun was up they were scorched; and because they had 
no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and 
the thorns sprung up and choked them: But others fell into good 
ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixty- 
fold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." (St. 
Matthew 13:3-9 ci., St. Mk. 4:3-20, St. Lu. 8:4-15.) 



1 1 6 Jesus* Idea 

the pivotal parable. With its advent, the national stage of the 
Kingdom has passed, and the individual, henceforth, is the 
unit of the Kingdom of God. This parable, in fact, was the 
first to be spoken by Jesus, and its bearing upon all subsequent 
parables is evident from His answer to the question of the 
disciples: "Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye 
know all parables?" (St. Mk. 4:13). While this illustration 
is pastoral in its simplicity, each Evangelist seems impressed 
with the importance of the story, inasmuch as each one repre- 
sents Jesus as saying at the close: "He that hath ears to hear, 
let him hear." Indeed, this parable is Jesus' nearest approxima- 
tion to a definition of the Kingdom of God. In it He both 
states what the Kingdom is, and gives its vicissitudes of growth. 
Elsewhere, He makes many allusions to it, and gives partial il- 
lustrations of it, but here He is comprehensive and thorough; 
He goes to the bottom of the matter. It was very important, 
indeed, that He should do so ; for the disciples, as the future rep- 
resentatives of the Kingdom, must understand its pregnant 
meaning, and failure to understand this parable would mean 
failure to understand all parables. Recognizing this, Jesus 
departs from His usual custom and becomes, in this instance, 
the interpreter of His own parable. 1 

Before we note the interpretation of this parable let us 
realize that nowhere is the surpassing intellectuality of Jesus 
more clearly revealed than in the parables. Jesus Christ was 
an intellectual giant, no less than a moral giant. His intellect, 
indeed, was as clear as crystal, alert, powerful, commanding. 
This characteristic of the Christ has received but scant ac- 

1 "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When anyone 
heareth the zvord of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then 
cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in 
his heart. This is he that receiveth seed by the wayside. But he that 
receiveth the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the 
word, and anon with joy receiveth it: Yet hath he not root in him- 
self, but dureth for awhile : for when tribulation or persecution 
ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that 
receiveth seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word ; and 
the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the 
word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that receiveth seed into 
the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; 
which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, 
some sixty, some thirty." (St. Matthew 13: 18-23). 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 117 

knowledgment. It has been almost lost sight of in the dazzling 
splendor of His moral vision. The painters and sculptors 
of all ages have made us familiar with a Christ whose face 
and form reveal the gentler qualities of humanity. They have 
been strikingly deficient in portraying the virility, the manliness, 
and the intellectuality of the Christ. Whether this can be done 
may be a matter of debate, but certainly the Christ of Art is not 
the Christ of the New Testament. It is probable that the 
intellectuality of Jesus, not to speak of His spirituality, defies 
portrayal. However this may be, every student of the teach- 
ing of Jesus should be alive to the keen intellectuality which 
He exhibited from the first in a marvelous mastery over the 
fundamental principles of the Kingdom of God, and in a no 
less marvelous ability in enunciating them. This is singularly 
exemplified in the first of His parables. 

"The sower soweth the w T ord," says Jesus, and the word 
sown is "the word of the kingdom." Now words are the ex- 
pression of ideas, and the idea, in this case, is the idea of God 
and His rule. It is, in brief, the Gospel of the Kingdom. 
(Let the reader consult St. Matthew 4:23; 24:14; Acts 1:3; 
28:31). The thought, indeed, in this parable constituted the 
nrystery or hidden truth of the Kingdom. Awaiting a perfect 
Kingdom of God, ushered in by a tour-de-force, the Jews learn 
that the Kingdom is akin to an idea sown among men, and 
that it is subject to all the vicissitudes of planting and growth. 
It was exceedingly difficult for the disciples to grasp this teach- 
ing, so Jesus reinforces the main conception of the parable by 
its details. While Chrysostom's canon of interpretation — 
"Nor is it necessary to w T aste labor by way of explanation 
over all matters in the parables, but having learned the de- 
sign for which it was constructed, to get possession of that, 
and not to busy one self with anything further" — is usually to 
be followed, this parable is an exception to the rule. In this 
case, the details are of primary importance. But what is the 
significance of the various details? 

The seeds which fall on a hard, trodden path, and lying 
upon the surface are soon carried away, are typical of those 
persons who hear the message of the Kingdom, but do not 
understand it. They are men without spiritual receptivity. 
The condition is abnormal, but it is real. Contact with life has 



Ii8 Jesus' Idea 

atrophied, not developed, their higher susceptibilities. The 
superinducing causes are not given by Jesus, but they are 
many and as effective to-day as then. And what is the re- 
sult? That which cannot penetrate into the inner life but 
lies upon the surface of the heart, extraneous influences soon 
remove. This detail shows also that the foes of the Kingdom 
are not only within the man, but are without him as well. 
There is a vast environment of evil which militates against 
the Kingdom, and seeks to prevent even its planting. 

There is also the stony soil, says Jesus, which is typical of 
those who hear the message of the Kingdom and "anon with 
joy receive it." This is the shallow, the volatile, the emotional 
type. "Of course," they say, "God should rule." But they 
do not count the cost. When the tribulation which ensues upon 
any honest attempt to do God's will arises, they are soon 
discouraged and rendered lifeless. This class is always the 
congenial soil of revivalism. Under stress of appeal and excite- 
ment religion springs into existence, and as easily dies. 

But again, some seed falls among thorns. Jesus' masterly 
analysis of human nature is strikingly apparent here. The soil 
is propitious, but it endeavors to grow two crops at the same 
time. The old story of God and Mammon. The cares of this 
world, or correctly of the age, are said to choke the Kingdom. 
Something more, indeed, than positive and acknowledged 
sinfulness wages warfare against the Kingdom of God. The 
anxiety of men in regard to temporal affairs militates against 
the development of God's rule. This thought, in fact, was 
ever present to the mind of Christ. We meet it in the parable 
of the King's Supper, and of The Rich Fool, and we find it 
elaborated at length in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus, 
of course, did not discourage thoughtful provision for the 
present and the future. What He had in mind was that 
anxiety which finds in this the great object of life to the neglect 
of the life of God, and which is a powerful foe of the King- 
dom in every age. 

The deceitfulness of riches, however, is also mentioned as a 
foe of the Kingdom. Wealth seems man's greatest good. Jesus, 
however, warns against its deceitfulness. And well might He do 
so. Wealthy men are by no means the happiest of men. The 
ability to enjoy wealth is indeed often lost in the shriveling 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 119 

of the soul attendant upon its accumulation. There is, also, 
the disquieting endeavor to increase or to retain the possessions, 
the haunting fear of loss, or of death, or even of enjoyment at 
the expense of spending. There is the surrounding crowd of 
sycophants whose patent insincerity casts suspicion on all one's 
friends. But pre-eminently are riches deceitful in that they 
lead to the placing of emphasis upon what a man has, rather 
than upon what a man is. They foster the fearful lie that 
happiness consists in having rather than in being, and thus 
blind to life's true values. They are often productive of 
moral bankruptcy. Acting in concert with man's love of 
pleasure and the lust for other things which lies buried in the 
human heart, the cares of life and the deceitfulness of money 
too frequently spring up to throttle the idea that God should 
rule; hence thousands of lives become unfruitful. 

Some seed, however, falls into good ground, and this good 
soil bears fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty 7 . 
One fourth of the sowing, at least, is not in vain. Here again is 
the prophetic doctrine of the remnant. Is the percentage of 
fruit-bearers always only one to three? If so, slender indeed is 
the stream of salvation. But narrow is the way that leadeth 
unto life, and few there be that find it. However this may 
be, it is noticeable that the Kingdom of God does not bear 
the same amount of fruit in every life. We cannot expect, 
therefore, the same degree of Christianity in all Christians: 
the young with the old, the well-trained with the ill-trained, the 
intelligent with the illiterate. The fruitage is dependent upon 
the planting, the environment, and the character of the soil; 
some is rich, some is mediocre, some is comparatively poor. 

Such, in outline, is the parable of the Sower. While 
prophetic of the future, it was also reminiscent of the past. 
Jesus, indeed, had already witnessed this varying reception of 
the Kingdom on the part of individuals. The outcome of ex- 
perience, the parable was undoubtedly spoken in mercy, in order 
that the disciples might understand the failure of much of their 
Master's sowing, and also the reception which awaited the 
truth when sown by them. The story, indeed, is the sad com- 
fort of every preacher to-day, and the ever-true commentary 
upon human nature. 

Jesus, however, spoke also of the attitude of certain classes 



120 Jesus' Idea 

toward the Kingdom of God. The parable of the Children 
Playing in the Market-place is Jesus' criticism of a class, as 
well as of a people (St. Luke 7:31-35). "But whereunto shall 
I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the 
markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have 
piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned 
unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither 
eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The 
Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold 
a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and 
sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Then began 
he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were 
done, because they repented not" (St. Matthew 11:16-20). 

The meaning of this parable is not apparent at once; it opens 
to view, however, upon examination. Jesus finds a resem- 
blance between the thoughtless, frolicking children who play 
in the market-place and reproach their disinterested play- 
mates for responding neither to their mournful nor to their 
merry strains, and the men of His own time. Jesus and 
John the Baptist are evidently the unwilling playmates; the 
men of that generation are the fault-finding children. Neither 
John nor Jesus could satisfy the people of their time. John, the 
rugged, unbending prophet of the wilderness, was too austere, 
ascetic, and unsympathetic. Although attracted for a time, 
an ease-loving age soon discarded the strenuous prophet of the 
desert (St. John 5:35). Then came Jesus. He was a decided 
contrast to John. Yes; but He was too unrestrained and 
too unconventional. John did not dance to their music; Jesus 
did not mourn to their whims. Hence there was only criticism 
and abuse from their countrymen. As a result, the age, in the 
thought of Jesus, was as superficial as childhood at play. 
Indeed, the men of His generation were merely players at 
religion. 

The age was dominated by the Pharisees, as we have seen. 
Being formalists, and content with the husks of religion, they 
became inevitably the chief opponents of John and of Jesus, who 
were the advocates of a moral and spiritual religion. Because 
of an inveterate tendency to live on the surface, and to be 
satisfied with the external; because undisturbed by any deep 
sense of the inward and the spiritual, that age was distinctly 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 121 

lacking in moral earnestness. John and Jesus were phenomena 
which it could not understand. They were accordingly dis- 
missed summarily with the characterization of one as a devil, 
and of the other, as "a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend 
of publicans and sinners." It is always so easy to abuse what 
we do not understand. 

This abuse, however, was a criticism of the fault-finders 
rather than of those faulted. Our Lord makes this apparent in 
the remark which concludes the parable. Despite Pharisaic 
sneer, He is comforted in the thought that "Wisdom is justified 
of all her children." It was true that neither the Pharisees, 
nor their generation, appreciated the Baptist nor Jesus. In 
their blind self-sufficiency, they could dismiss both with a super- 
ficial criticism, but fortunately there were some wise enough 
to justify the wisdom of Jesus and of John, as it was exemplified 
in their varying conduct. These, of course, are the children 
of wisdom. 

Both of the criticised had acted, indeed, in accordance with 
a true principle and a true conception of their era, although 
their lassez-faire generation had not the moral depth to see 
it. John, born in the priestly course, and to the priestly office, 
in reaction against his time, refused the honors and emoluments 
of his hereditary calling, and, despite birth and inheritance, 
sought the solitude of the wilderness to hear amidst its undis- 
turbed stillness the voice of God, which his age was stifling. 
There he caught the accents of reality, and emerging to the 
banks of the Jordan, he translated into speech, the intense 
convictions born of that silence. In view of the approaching 
Kingdom, and the needful preparation therefor, the character 
and the career of John were eminently fitting. Asceticism, 
sternness, denunciation, moral intensity, the age demanded. 
John met the demand admirably. He was the embodiment of 
the highest in his time; the flower of his age. On the other 
hand, Jesus, the founder of the Kingdom, conscious of God's 
rule and its blessing of redemption and release, aware of the 
joy and peace in His own life, and of the bliss which awaited 
a lost world, shunned no man, but sought all men in love. His 
manifest duty was to be in the world, and for the world, but 
not of the world. 

Thus Jesus indicated by this parable that the Pharisees, and 



122 Jesus' Idea 

the men of His generation, would not receive the Kingdom 
of God. This, however, is equally true of the same class in every 
age. The Pharisees, unfortunately, cannot be restricted to the 
time of Christ. Their lineal descendants are multitudinous; 
the fecundity of the class is marvelous. The world, in 
fact, is full of religious dilettantes, of players at religion. Our 
Lord designated these repeatedly as hypocrites; and the title 
was indeed deserved. The word originally signified an actor — 
one who spoke through a mask, according to the custom of 
the ancient stage. Such, indeed, is the hypocrite throughout 
all time — one who plays a part. He may seek only to deceive 
others, or he may unconsciously deceive himself. Hypocrisy, 
however, is either the intentional, or the unintentional acting of 
a role. 

Unfortunately, well nigh every age betrays the earmarks 
of this Pharisaic class. The Roman Church, for example, at 
the Reformation, lacked the moral earnestness to grasp the sig- 
nificance of the strenuous voice of Luther, in spite of the re- 
peated warnings of Savonarola, Wycliffe, and others, the far- 
seeing heralds of the coming dawn. The lethargic Anglican 
Church of the eighteenth century lacked, to its shame and 
loss, the moral depth to appreciate the mighty protest of Wesley, 
and the zeal and intensity of the early Methodist movement. 
Yet both the Roman and the Anglican Churches were very 
earnestly playing at religion. In fact, many instances of this 
Pharisaic blindness might be cited, not only in the Church, 
but in the State and in Society. The Abolition movement, the 
present labor agitation, and the general social movement of our 
time witness to its presence in more recent years. In truth, 
this moral obtuseness is the fruitful parent of heresy and schism 
in the Church, and of Revolution in the State and in the Social 
Organism. These are caused more frequently by the goodness 
of the human heart than by its evil. A self-satisfied and 
superficial age meets the enlightened or the unenlightened, 
the restless and the earnest heralds of a new era with stolid in- 
difference, open contempt, or hostility. Often the witnesses 
for the truth fall, the victims of their progressive ideas, and 
the blindness of their generation. Yet the down-trodden 
truth rises again, only strengthened by defeat, to cumulate ever 
accumulating strength until the storm breaks; then we have 



The World's Reception of the Kingdom 123 

revolution in Church or State or Society: the atmosphere is 
cleared, and men breathe more freely. 

Jesus also gives another well-founded criticism of this Phari- 
saic class in the parable of the Two Sons. "But what think 
ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, 
and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. He answered 
and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. 
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered 
and said, I go, sir : and went not. Whether of them twain did 
the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus 
saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans 
and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For 
John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye be- 
lieved him not : but the publicans and the harlots believed him : 
and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye 
might believe him" (St. Matthew 21 128-32). 

This parable is the preface to the parables of the Wicked 
Husbandmen, and the Marriage of the King's Son. It is 
addressed to the same persons, and with much the same intent. 
In it, Jesus does for His auditors that for which the poet Burns 
petitions in his famous lines : 

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us 
To see oursel's as others see us!" 

Our Lord, in fact, not infrequently assumes the role of the 
candid friend. Malice, however, or the mere desire to wound 
are never the prompting motives. This parable, and the 
superb invective of the denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, 
more poignant than any that can be found in the Philippics 
of Demosthenes, the Orations against Cataline, or the letters of 
Junius (St. Matthew 23), are the attempts of an outraged 
but loving heart to open the blind eyes, and by heroic measures, 
to sting into amendment of life, where the soft appeal of love 
has failed. 

But what is the portraiture of this parable? To under- 
stand that the Two Sons represent respectively the Jews and 
the Gentiles is to misunderstand the parable, and to ignore the 
context. The correct interpretation finds in the first mentioned 
son, the publicans and the harlots of Jesus' day. The former 
were the despised tax-gatherers who, as Jews, in the service of 



124 Jesus' Idea 

the Roman Empire, were thought to sacrifice both their religion 
and their patriotism to assume such an office. The latter were 
women of the street, who, in the sacrifice of chastity, lost self- 
respect, and became a menace and a scourge to others. These 
classes, along with other Jews before the days of John the 
Baptist, had been commanded by God to work in His vine- 
yard of Israel, and to produce the fruit of righteousness of life 
according to the teaching of the Law and the Prophets. They 
had curtly and steadily refused. But when John came, there 
was a change. The tremendous earnestness and the moral power 
of the man had produced a conviction of sin, had fanned into 
flame the slumbering embers of conscience, and had awakened 
a desire for a better life. Consequently they repented, and 
went into the Vineyard. 

But the Second Son — who is he? Manifestly he represents 
the Chief Priests and the Elders whom Jesus was addressing; 
the members of the Sanhedrin, the great legislative, executive, 
and judicial council of the Jews and their class. While they, 
with much pretention and an unseemly ostentation which called 
forth stinging rebuke from Jesus on more than one occasion, 
were apparently working in the Vineyard, in truth they were 
not laboring in the Vineyard at all. And, unlike the poor 
publicans and harlots, the strong voice of the Baptist had no 
message for them, and his passionate appeal awakened no 
response. Even when they saw the supposedly irredeemable 
classes repenting, they were not convinced. Hence Jesus aptly 
remarked, "The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of 
God before you." The satire of this remark is incomparable. 
Before the Chief Priests, the Elders, the Aristocracy, the 
Orthodox, the publicans and harlots were to enter the Kingdom 
of Heaven. Verily, the wounds of the Friend are faithful. But 
how humbling to Jewish pride, and how bitter to Jewish 
ears! We must indeed admire the splendid courage of the 
Man Christ-Jesus, and His keenness of perception. Have these 
parables no meaning for our generation ? 



CHAPTER IX 

THE VALUE OF THE KINGDOM 

Notwithstanding its varying reception at the hands of 
men, the Kingdom would remain life's chief value. Jesus was 
fully convinced of this as His words attest. Let us notice some 
of His declarations. 

The Lord's Prayer is interesting and suggestive in this con- 
nection. The first petition is that the name of God, not the 
mere name however, for among the Hebrews names were not 
conferred indiscriminately, but each bore a distinct significance, 
rather the name with all that it connotes may be hallowed 
or reverenced of men. Secondly, petition is made that God's 
rule may become actual in that God's will may be done on 
earth as it is done in Heaven. This, of course, would be the 
direct outcome of man's proper reverence for God; hence the 
first petition reveals the logical order both in time and thought. 
What is noteworthy, however, is that Jesus foreshadows His 
estimate of the value of the Kingdom, when He makes prayer 
for its coming, and that which will induce its coming, precede 
prayer for any immediate individual need. This, indeed, is an 
essential characteristic of all prayer genuinely offered in the 
name of Jesus. To ask anything in Jesus' name means to 
ask in the spirit, the power and the intention of Christ. It 
means that the one who prays is occupying toward God the 
relationship of Jesus in love and desire, so far as that rela- 
tionship can be assumed by any human being. All prayer is, 
therefore, conditional: the condition of successful prayer is the 
Kingdom of God. If this fact were remembered how much 
richer would be both the teaching and the practice of the 
Christian Church. 

But we are not confined to inferential evidence as to the 
value of the Kingdom. There are explicit statements of 
Jesus upon the subject, Most obvious, perhaps, is this one: 
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and 

125 



126 Jesus' Idea 

all these things shall be added unto you" (St. Mt. 6:33; St. Lu. 
12:31-32). Here we see that Jesus would not only have the 
coming of the Kingdom the primary burden of humanity's 
prayer, He would also have it the primary quest of mankind. 
When given by St. Matthew, the words just quoted are a 
portion of the Sermon on the Mount, and the context assist 
greatly in their interpretation. Jesus has just declared that 
"No man can serve two Masters" — God and Gold. He bids 
His followers "take no thought for your life, what ye shall 
eat, or what ye shall drink." He inquires, "Is not the life 
more than meat, and the body than raiment?" He cites the 
birds of the air, and the tender lilies of the field as illustrations 
of that which is fed and clothed by the Father in Heaven 
without wearying anxiety. He then asks, If God makes such 
provision for even the short-lived grass of the field, shall He not 
much more clothe and care for His children? The answer is 
self-evident; and Jesus closes His subject with an earnest ex- 
hortation to the disciples, not to take thought as to what they 
shall eat or drink, or wherewithal they shall be clothed, for 
these are the chief objects of the heathen Gentile's life. Rather 
are they to "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteous- 
ness; and all these things shall be added." 

Jesus, indeed, sees that mankind at large seeks the temporal 
and the transient, and that about these they worry greatly. 1 
Now in contradistinction to this quest, Jesus urges mankind 
to seek, in the first place, the Kingdom or sovereignty of God. 
His idea is this : Instead of that forbidden care for temporal con- 
cerns and necessities, which most people make the chief end 
of life, mankind should seek first the rule of God, and that 
righteousness of life of which God approves. The passage, 
however, is really stronger than it appears to be at first sight. 
To seek something first might imply that there could be a 
legitimate seeking of something else second. This, however, is 
not the teaching of Jesus. A second striving is entirely pre- 
cluded from His thought by the words which follow, and 
which precede these. Jesus has just declared against the 
objects of the Gentiles' search, and has shown that there will 

1 "Not to be anxious" is the significance of the Greek merimnesete, 
which is translated in the Authorized Version by the somewhat 
colorless phrase, "Take no thought." 



The Value of the Kingdom 127 

be no necessity for such a quest on the part of His followers. 
The promise is explicit that in seeking first the Kingdom of 
God, and His righteousness, "all these things shall be added 
unto you' (vs. 33). 

Any strong statement is likely to arouse the combative 
nature of man, as strong natures always arouse more or less 
hostility. This is emphatically true of such a statement as 
this. It is a bold challenge to humanity. It attacks man in 
a vital point. He is told not to make the very things, which 
seem to be first by every law of nature and necessity, the 
object of his consideration. Instead he is to seek what appears 
to him a somewhat intangible and unreal something, called the 
Kingdom of God, which in turn will bring all needful things. 
Hence many think Jesus an impractical idealist, or a fraud 
and sensational deceiver. Is this statement, indeed, sense or 
nonsense? Is it faith or works? In answering this question, 
we must bear in mind the essential idea of the Kingdom. 
Then the query is: Will food and raiment be added to one 
who seeks God's absolute sovereignty over his life, as the gift 
of God wholly, or is man to be accounted a partial cause? 
The answer to this question also reveals one of the Kingdom's 
fundamental values. 

While we would not derogate from God's part in the 
matter, we believe that the necessities of life will be added 
normally, not merely as a reward but as a partial effect 
or result ; for one of the fundamental principles of God's 
law is work. It is, indeed, an important requirement of the 
righteousness of God, and it was a law of nature long before 
it was a law of religion. "Work" is the law of God, however, 
enunciated as distinctly in the Fourth Commandment, as is the 
observance of the Sabbath. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do 
all that thou hast to do," is as obligatory upon mankind as 
is the duty implied in the words: "Remember the Sabbath Day 
to keep it holy." The implications of this truth, however, are 
not as fully understood by the disciples of Jesus as they 
ought to be. From it follows that in the Kingdom of God there 
is nothing religious per se, and nothing secular. Everything 
indeed becomes religious. Work is transfigured. The men 
who labor on the six days of the week, become ministers of 
God, no less than he who ministers on the one supposedly 



128 Jesus' Idea 

sacred day. The six days for labor belong to God, and are 
quite as sacred as the one day of rest. God overshadows the 
week; it is his entire. This truth also proves that Christianity, 
or the Kingdom, is the most practical of all things. It brings 
God to bear upon every duty and relationship of life, how- 
ever humble, and consecrates each duty and all relationships to 
God. Christianity, indeed, is the religion of the common- 
place. 1 

Hence, in seeking first the Kingdom of God, and His 
righteousness, man is doing that which inspires to work. This 
is the sense of Jesus' remark about the fowls of the air and the 
lilies of the field; they are fed and clothed, yet they do not 
madly fret and strive. They simply fulfil the law of their 
being, and, as a result are fed and clothed by God. So, says 
Jesus, should it be among men. The world is constituted for 
man quite as much as for the birds, and if man will simply fol- 
low the law of his being, which is to seek first the Kingdom 
of God, food, drink and raiment will be added. 

1 Passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, we 
find Jesus declaring, at the age of twelve years, that He must be 
about His Father's business. Later He affirmed that the work 
which His Father had given Him to do He had performed. 
(St. Jn. 17:4) "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Well- 
nigh the last words of the Master were, "It is finished." The refer- 
ence, of course, is to His work. The presupposition also of the 
Parable of the Sower, the Pounds, the Talents, and the Laborers 
in the Vineyard, is the idea of the necessity of labor. Everywhere, 
indeed, Jesus assumes work as the normal characteristic of man. 
Even in the selection of His apostles He followed the principle 
so strikingly illustrated in the Old Testament: Elisha was sum- 
moned to the prophetical office from the plow. Saul and David 
and Moses were also called from busy activity to their respective 
duties. God apparently had no respect for idlers. Indeed God 
and men alike, and even bees, despise drones. Hence the Apostles 
were summoned from ships, from nets, and from the receipt of 
customs; none were called from the street corners or the market 
places. From fishers of fish they became fishers of men. _ They 
exchanged one department of work for another. The mind of 
God and of Jesus upon this point is, indeed, fully revealed in 
the question: "If therefore ye have not been faithful in the 
unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true 
riches?" (St. Luke 16:11.) It is the servant who has been "faith- 
ful in very little" to whom is committed "authority over ten- 
cities" (St. Lu. 19:17). Such language denotes the really spiritual 
nature of work. Labor, indeed, is a sacrament of grace. 



The Value of the Kingdom 129 

This however, is not the way of the world. The usual way 
is to seek first material things, then, by and by, perhaps spiritual 
things. 1 

Even more explicitly, however, the value of the Kingdom is 
disclosed in the parables of the Hidden Treasure and the 
Pearl of Great Price. Spoken in the privacy of a dwelling, 
and to the disciples alone, these parables constitute Jesus' most 
emphatic statement of the supreme value of the Kingdom of 
God. "Again, the Kingdom of God is like unto treasure hid in 
a field, the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and 
for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth 
that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a mer- 
chant man, seeking goodly pearls : who, when he hath found one 
pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought 
it" (St. Mt. 13:44-46). 

Archbishop Trench informs us "that in the East, on account 
of the different changes of dynasties, and the revolutions which 
accompany them, many rich men divide their goods into three 
parts: one they employ in common, or for their necessary sup- 

1 The order of quest, emphasized here by Christ, is also set forth 
in the Lord's Prayer : "Thy Kingdom come ; Thy will be done on 
earth as it is in heaven" ; then follows, "Give us this day our daily 
bread." This teaching almost convinces of the authenticity of a 
purported saying of Jesus, which has been handed down by Clement, 
Origen, and Eusebius : "Ask the great things, and the small will 
be added to you; ask also the heavenly things, and the earthly will 
be added to you." 

It is significant that in St. Luke's Gospel the parable of the 
Rich Fool is the occasion of Jesus' exhortation : "Seek first the 
Kingdom of God." Whether Jesus repeated His teaching, or whether 
this difference is due to confusion in the Evangelist's mind, is com- 
paratively unimportant. The context in St. Luke's Gospel is at least 
logical, if not historical. To emphasize the usual quest of man 
and its futility, Jesus spoke the parable of the Rich Fool. He 
then followed in much the same strain as in St. Matthew's report, 
and concludes with the command, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of 
God." The meaning is quite apparent. The Rich Fool, as the 
result of his life of striving, had amassed wealth ; he thought him- 
self sufficient unto himself, but the Kingdom of God did not come. 
He died a spiritual bankrupt. Now, in marked contrast to this, 
Jesus remarks that where the Kingdom of God is sought first, 
temporal necessities will follow, at least in a measurable degree. 
The Fool had made a fatal mistake. To warn against a similar 
mistake is the object of Jesus. 



130 Jesus' Idea 

port: one they turn into jewels, which, should it prove need- 
ful to fly, could be easily carried with them; a third part 
they bury. But as they trust no one with the place where 
the treasure is buried, so is the same, should they not return 
to the spot before their death, as good as lost to the living, 
until by chance, a lucky peasant digging in his field, lights 
upon it. And thus when we read in Eastern tales how a man 
has found a buried treasure, and in a moment risen from poverty 
to great riches, this is, in fact, no strange or rare occurrence, 
but a natural consequence of the customs of these people." 

Such, indeed, is the circumstance of the first of these 
parables. A man has stumbled unexpectedly upon a hid treasure. 
For fear it might escape him, he hides it again, while he goes 
and sells all that he has, and buys the field. The legality of 
this action is indisputable; the morality of it is certainly 
questionable. Jesus, however, is not discussing the morality of 
the action; He is simply setting forth the supreme value of 
the Kingdom, and the price at which alone it can be bought. 
This parable must be classified with the parables of the 
Unjust Judge, and the Unjust Steward, and interpreted in the 
same generous way. Evidently, Jesus was not in sympathy with 
intellectual prudery. The second illustration, however, offers 
no difficulty. A merchant was seeking pearls. These were 
greatly esteemed in the Ancient World. Beautiful in them- 
selves, the tradition as to their formation probably enhanced 
their value. "The fish conceived the pearl from the dew of 
heaven, and according to the quality of the dew, it was pure 
and round, or cloudy and deformed with specks. The state of 
the atmosphere at this time of conception, and the hour of 
the day, had great influence on their size and color." "Goodly 
pearls" this merchantman is seeking. He finds one, at length, 
of great price, and, selling all that he has, makes himself 
the owner of the coveted treasure. 

These parables are much alike in their general features, yet 
there is a noteworthy difference. With His accustomed in- 
sight, Jesus divides mankind into two classes: the seekers, and 
the non-seekers, the thinkers, and the non-thinkers, the aspirants, 
and the non-aspirants. The division, however, is absolutely un- 
tainted by cynical criticism, or haughty depreciation of those 
who do not think. The man who finds, the Hid Treasure, 



The Value of the Kingdom 131 

stumbles upon it accidentally ; he is involved in no conscious 
search for anything. This is typical of the majority of men. 
For them, there is no absolute good in life. That which is 
immediately about them occupies their thought to the exclusion 
of all else. They are content to live in the practical and the 
material. Speculation as to their origin, the reason for their 
existence, and their destiny, is utterly foreign to them. They 
are men, "Who have no Whence or Whither in their souls." 
They are unconscious of any treasure of surpassing worth, 
hidden from their eyes, and lying deeper than they have ex- 
plored. But suddenly, and unexpectedly, the blind eyes are 
opened, the treasure is discovered, and their joy becomes intense. 

But what is the discovery? Some maintain that the field 
of the parable is the Bible, and the Hid Treasure, the knowl- 
edge of Christ which is hidden there. Others identify the 
field with the visible Church, while the Hid Treasure is the in- 
ward and spiritual Church. Neither of these interpretations, 
however, fulfil the requirements of the parable. The field is 
the world of human life, and its Hid Treasure is the knowl- 
edge of and the necessity for God's rule, which most men over- 
look, entirely unconscious of its value, until perchance stumbling 
upon it, they perceive its inestimable worth, and for joy, gladly 
sacrifice all that they possess to gain it. What, indeed, could 
better express the sacrifice of self-will in its countless manifesta- 
tions — the imperative price of the Kingdom, as we have seen 
— than the parting with all one's possessions in order that this 
Treasure might be obtained. 

In the second parable, however, we have a merchantman 
seeking goodly pearls. Unlike the personage of the former 
parable, this man is alive to the higher things of life. Finali- 
ties have for him an interest, also origins. The material 
and the practical are not sufficient. He rises above the carnal, 
and considers the intellectual, perhaps the spiritual. He asks 
questions which he cannot answer. He thinks, he aspires! 
Finally he discovers one pearl of surpassing worth. He sells 
all that he has, that he may buy it. His search need go no 
further. The void of his life is filled. All lesser things become 
centered in one thing. Life is seen to be a unit. Finalities and 
origins are explained. His questions are answered. He has 
found the Kingdom of God, the Pearl of Great Price. 



t$l Jesus* Idea 

If we put ourselves in the position of those who listened to 
the Master, we must agree with them as to the utterly stupe- 
fying effect of these parables as spoken by Him. To Jesus' 
countrymen, the supreme value of the Kingdom lay in the 
avenging of Israel's wrongs, the humiliation of the Gentiles, 
and the exaltation of the Jew in the establishment of a world 
empire. But what was its value in the thought of this singular 
Galilean? The disciples even could not understand. The 
vision of the Jews, indeed, included themselves alone: their his- 
tory, their wrongs, their destiny — this earth. Jesus, on the con- 
trary, surveyed humanity throughout the ages; the world's 
history, its wrongs, its destiny — not only earth, but heaven. 
There was no necessarily irreconcilable conflict, however, be- 
tween the two views. The history of the Jews and the world's 
history were not intended for hopeless contrariety. They 
were intended to be complementary. But the Jews would not 
have it God's way. They could only interpret value in terms 
of earth and of self. Spiritual things were "at a discount." 
Hence, Jesus' conception of the Kingdom's value was an 
enigma beyond solution. How could the Kingdom of this 
peasant, the Galilean carpenter, be the most valuable of all 
things, and worth life's supremest sacrifice? Yet, despite the 
national rejection of the Kingdom, despite the sorry reception 
which it would receive at the hands of men, despite class criticism 
and repudiation, Jesus never wavered in His estimate of its 
value. Was it madness? The Jews thought so. Is it mad- 
ness to-day to declare the Kingdom of God the highest good? 
The world thinks so. Is this, however, a criticism of the 
Jews and of the World, or of Jesus and the Kingdom? Let 
us see. 

The Kingdom of God in its last analysis is the sovereignty of 
God, whether we consider it from the standpoint of fact, 
intent, or aim. What, then, is the value of this to man? 
This is a large question, and in endeavoring to answer it we can- 
not be more than suggestive. The Kingdom is the most valu- 
able of all things in that it means the salvation of the in- 
dividual, and of the world. The presupposition of Christianity 
is that we live in a lost world. An old-fashioned idea, and un- 
pleasant to the ears of our masterful generation, it is never- 



The Value of the Kingdom 133 

theless true. 1 But what is meant by being lost? When we 
speak of the lost condition, and we are thinking of religion, 
Hell is usually prominent in the thought. Our minds are full 
of imagery, the creation of dread, and of much preaching. 
The word has thus a harsh meaning. Indeed, when many refer 
to the mission of Our Lord, they speak of it as an endeavor 
to save mankind from the torments of Hell. This, however, is 
only a half-truth, and, without the complementary truth, is 
exceedingly pernicious, for it loses sight of the primary idea 
of the term. 

Jesus, however, constantly used the word and He must have 
had a definite idea as to its meaning. In studying His thought, 
indeed, we have an opportunity to learn how the true teach- 
ing of the New Testament is often marred by our unwilling- 
ness to interpret the words of Jesus in their natural significance, 
and without recourse to strained traditionalism. In three 
memorable parables, Jesus indicates the true signification of this 
word. In defending His seemingly familiar intercourse with 
publicans and sinners from Pharisaic aspersion, He narrates 
the Parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost, 
or Prodigal Son (St. Lu. 15). In the first of these, Jesus 
justifies His conduct by that of a shepherd, who leaves his 
ninety and nine sheep to seek one that is lost; in the second, 
by that of a woman who spares neither time nor strength in 
the search for a coin which had been lost. In the third, He 
tells the story of two brothers, one of whom leads a life 
of filial obedience, while the other, departing from his father's 
home, seeks the excitement of riotous living. He drinks the 
cup of his fancied happiness to the dregs, and then comes 
the inevitable reaction, satiety. Seeing the distress to which 
his folly has brought him, he returns to his home, and is wel- 
comed by his father with merriment and thanksgiving, while 
his elder brother is displeased at the favor shown the wanderer. 
Now what is important for our subject is this: the father 
justifies his conduct in these words: "It was meet that we 
should make merry, and be glad, for this thy brother was 
dead, and is alive again; and was lost and is found" Here 
the fundamental meaning of "lost," as used by Jesus, is evi- 

1 "The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost." (St. Mt. 
18:11.) 



134 Jesus' Idea 

dent. The boy had strayed from his father's house, had become 
lost in the path of living. Returning, however, to home and 
duty, he is said to have been found. Thus the term is truly 
pathetic. The word speaks of a human being, who, embarked 
upon the sea of life, has lost his bearings, is tempest tossed, 
and likely not to reach his destination. 

If we think of the depths of meaning in the word, as thus 
interpreted, we understand the work of Jesus as we never 
did. There bursts upon us the full significance of the saying: 
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Men, indeed, are 
lost in the way of living; lost, too, to the truth, thinking 
erroneously, and with truth divorced from life; confused, also, 
as to the ideal of life, and craving the inspiration to live. Jesus, 
however, cries, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." 
The exquisite tenderness of the figure of the Good Shepherd also 
becomes very real. Thus Jesus' conception is one of great 
beauty and persuasiveness. Pitying humanity, He has come 
to save, not so much from future penalty, as from present peril. 

An age of surpassing achievements in the material and the 
intellectual worlds may be loth to believe itself lost. Looking, 
however, from the world without the man to the world within, 
skepticism becomes belief; doubt, certainty. Soon or late, man 
is convinced of his impotency with regard to himself. He 
is conscious of a strange contrariety of experience. He cannot 
interpret himself to himself. He cannot control himself. 
Nature and mind are easier to harness and to handle than self. 
He fulfils to some degree in his own personality the experience 
so graphically depicted by St. Paul. "For that which I do 
I allow; but what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, 
that do I. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth 
no good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to per- 
form that which is good I find not. For the good that I 
would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. 
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, 
but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when 
I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in 
the law of God after the inward man : But I see another law 
in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and 
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my 
members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me 



The Value of the Kingdom 135 

from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:15, 18-24). 

This experience, indeed, is universal. Man is at war with 
himself. His higher and lower natures fight. The lower often 
triumphs, and with the triumph comes the haunting convic- 
tion that it ought not to have triumphed. Man suffers, in 
fact, from what the philosopher Kant calls the categorical 
imperative: that within which tells him in no uncertain voice 
that he ought and ought not. While the individual is free 
to choose between different courses of action, there is something 
within which unfalteringly bids him choose the right. If the di- 
rection is not obeyed, a feeling of guilt ensues. Life thus 
abundantly witnesses to man's lost condition, and explains 
humanity's constant cry: "Oh for a man to arise in me, 
That the man I am, may cease to be!" 

Now just here appears the supreme value of the Kingdom 
of God. It is the Kingdom which finds man. It rescues him 
in the lost condition. It brings the prodigal back to the 
Father's house. Or, if we adopt more popular phraseology, 
it is the Kingdom which saves man. In using this term, how- 
ever, we must interpret aright a misinterpreted theological 
term. What is salvation? Let us take our cue from the 
name of our Lord. The name Jesus, true to the Hebrew 
usage, was not conferred haphazardly upon the Christ-Child. 
"Thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from 
their sins" (St. Mt. 1:21). Jesus, in fact, is the Greek 
equivalent of the Hebrew, Joshua, or Jehoshua, which means 
"Jehovah will save." The name was bestowed upon Jesus 
because it was typical of His life work. But from what was He 
to save? "From Hell," of course is the usual reply. Yet 
the Angel of the Annunciation declares: "he shall save his 
people from their sins." Now manifestly there is a difference 
in these two conceptions. Salvation from sin is the real mis- 
sion of Christ, however, and in order to understand the high 
valuation which He placed upon the Kingdom of God, we 
must ask another question, What is sin? 

The Greek word translated "sin" is amartia, which means 
"missing the mark." It is very significant that the words most 
frequently used for "sin" in both the Old and New Testa- 
ment have this fundamental idea. Man is regarded as having 
missed the mark which God has set for him. Humanity has 



136 Jesus' Idea 

missed its aim. Life in consequence is largely a bungle and a 
tangle ; thought, an error and deceit. And man feels measurably 
responsible for this. Hence to the anguish of the condition 
itself is added the haunting sense of guilt with its inevitable 
accompaniment — the fear of punishment. This, indeed, is the 
condition from which Jesus came to save. Salvation, then, is 
something more than deliverance from a future Hell. 

The popular idea of salvation, we fear, loses entirely the true 
beauty of the thought of Jesus. Let us remember that the 
words used by our Lord are always of poetic significance. 
Jesus was neither a dogmatician nor a systematic theologian. 
His method was to suggest rather than to define; to provoke 
thought rather than to offset inquiry. "Salvation," indeed, as 
it represents His thought, was full of poetic meaning. The 
Greek term has the thought of healing, curing, making well. 
It is interesting to notice that the word used in the Angelic 
message is employed by the Evangelists on several occasions 
to translate the thought of Jesus Himself. For example, 
in speaking to the poor woman who had an issue of blood, and 
who had just touched His garment, Jesus said : "Daughter, be of 
good cheer, thy faith hath made thee whole/' i. e., saved thee; 
for the word translated "hath made thee whole" is this very 
word "save" (St. Mt. 9:22). Again in St. Mark 10:52, 
Jesus, in curing a man of his blindness, says: "Go thy way, thy 
faith hath made thee whole." Here again is our word "save." 
Now in both of these instances — and others might be cited — 
the reference is to a person who is afflicted or diseased. Jesus 
comes and saves them physically, i. e., makes them well. This 
word, then, when applied to the spiritual part of man, repre- 
sents most admirably Jesus' conception of salvation as spiritual 
health. Jesus, Himself, in justifying His intercourse with out- 
casts, says, "They that are whole need not a physician, but 
they that are nek," 

The idea, then, is that mankind is morally diseased, and 
to cure the maladies of the soul and their gruesome conse- 
quences, to save man in this sense, Jesus came. 1 Consequently, 

1 This idea of salvation as healthf ulness is found in certain of 
the Psalms : "Thy way may be known upon earth ; thy saving 
health among all nations" (Ps. 67). Again, in Psalm 103, we read 
of the Lord who "healeth all thine infirmities." 



The Value of the Kingdom 137 

salvation is the curing of humanity's malady, in order that the 
individual and the race may hit the mark, or attain their God- 
appointed goal. It is also the removal of that sense of guilt, 
which rests upon mankind like a somber pall, and which often 
engenders despair. Salvation, indeed, is the Kingdom of God. 

We have dwelt upon this subject because it is of great im- 
portance in properly estimating the value of the Kingdom of 
God. It is only in the Kingdom, in fact, that man can find him- 
self; self-realization through self-sacrifice ; can find the unifying 
principle of life, developing through his obedience to the will 
of God, all the powers, active and latent, in his personality. 
And he thus affects not only himself, for no man liveth unto 
himself, but others also. He may influence even posterity 
through the laws of heredity, and also the general environment 
of man. If it is true that the sins of the fathers are visited 
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of those 
that hate God and refuse to obey Him, it is equally flrue 
that the virtues of the fathers are visited upon thousands in 
them that love God and keep His commandments. So that the 
Kingdom of God in the individual begets the Kingdom of God 
in the offspring; or, if this be too strong a statement, it at least 
predisposes to, and paves the way for, its establishment. 

"I read a record deeper than the skin. 
What ! Shall the trick of nostrils and of lips 
Descend through generations, and the soul 
That moves within our frame like God in worlds — 
Convulsing, urging, melting, withering — 
Imprint no record, leave no documents, 
Of her great history? Shall men bequeath 
The fancies of their palate to their sons, 
And shall the shudder of restraining awe, 
The slow-wept tears of contrite memory, 
Faith's prayerful labor, and the food divine 
Of fasts ecstatic — shall these pass away 
Like wind upon the waters, tracklessly? 
Shall the mere curl of eyelashes remain, 
And God-enshrining symbols leave no trace 
Of tremors reverent?" 

But man is more than the product of heredity. He is influ- 
enced profoundly by his surroundings. Yet, while environ- 
ment may make the man, man also makes the environment. 
Hence it is important to observe that the Kingdom of God 



138 Jesus' Idea 

in man means both gradually and ultimately the creation of an 
environment which is favorable to the interests of the Kingdom 
in the individual, and in the world. The words of St. Paul 
are significant to-day: "For the earnest expectation of the 
creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children 
of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth 
and travaileth in pain together until now" (Rom. 8:19-21-22). 
The present environment of man, indeed, cries out for redemp- 
tion. This the Kingdom gives. In it, both man and creatures 
are relieved. Even the horse, the dog, and the cat fare the 
better. The yoke of sin is lifted. All things again become 
good. Thus we see that the sovereignty of God is no arbi- 
trary fiat of a tyrannous sovereign. It is designed for the 
good of man; it represents the truest welfare of mankind. 
With it, man becomes a new creature, and earth is transfigured. 
It is, indeed, the making of an ideal humanity, and an ideal 
world. Do we wonder that Jesus stressed the value of the 
Kingdom? Was He mistaken in His estimate? 

The Kingdom, however, has an additional value, at least in 
the thought of the writer. The Kingdom of God, indeed, is 
the harmony of the mind as well as of the soul. It is mental 
peace no less than spiritual peace. Man, upon reflection, 
stands aghast at his own apparent insignificance in the presence 
of the teeming millions of the world, in the presence of the 
ages of the past and of the future, and in the presence of the 
shortness and uncertainty of the individual life. Looking upon 
the world of the past, the present and the future, however, 
the subject of the Kingdom sees nothing to dismay. Man is 
apparently insignificant, and of few days — but what of that? 
This world always has been and always will be the Kingdom 
of God. God, indeed, is sovereign; man may destroy himself, 
as we have seen, but he cannot destroy God's plan, nor ulti- 
mately thwart God's purpose. And there is purpose in the 
drama of Creation. The past has not been aimless, nor is the 
present goalless. The mind of man, indeed, can detect order 
and advance in history, slow, tortuous but sjure: a movement 
sometimes forward, sometimes backward, but ever on the whole 
ascending, never moving in mere cycles. And every individual 



The Value of the Kingdom 139 

has a relation to this purpose. The individual is a factor, 
albeit, a small factor in the plan, yet very necessary; each in- 
dividual is, indeed, as it were a stone in a great structure. 
The Architect is God. Thus the Kingdom of God gives the 
true perspective from which to view man, life and history. The 
Kingdom, indeed, is seen to be the intent, the end and the aim 
of human history. It explains the individual to himself; it 
is man's apology for existence, the raison d'etre of his being. 
It makes intelligible the centuries of the past, and the individual's 
relation thereto. Further, in exhibiting the vastness of the 
eternal design, it makes apparent the slowness of the process, 
the complexity of its movements, and the value of even the 
most trivial things. It also suggests much as to the glory 
and the splendor of the consummation of the process and the 
character of the issue of the age-long development. It extends 
also into the eternal world and finds place for those who have 
gone before; the individuals and the nations which are passed 
away; offering immeasurable opportunity to those who perish 
with untried and undeveloped powers. The Kingdom of God, 
indeed, is a conception and a reality, which includes not only 
the individual and society, but the world and the universe, 
heaven and earth, time and eternity. Thus the philosophical 
value of the Kingdom is marked no less than its spiritual value. 
Again we ask, was Jesus' mistaken in His estimate of the King- 
dom's worth? 



CHAPTER X 

THE ALLOY OF THE KINGDOM 

If the parables of the Sower and of the Seed Growing 
Secretly were a revelation and a disappointment to the Jews, 
equally, if not more keenly, disappointing were the parables 
of the Tares and of the Drag-Net 1 Yet these followed logically 
from the Kingdom's general analogy — growth. All that Jesus 
taught, in fact, in regard to the development of the Kingdom 
was logically deducible from this fundamental truth. The 
Jews, however, not being able to grant the premise, could not 
accept the conclusions; yet the revelation contained in these 

1 The illustrations are as follows : "Another parable put he forth 
unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man 
which sowed good seed in his field : But while men slept, his 
enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then 
appeared the tares also. So the servants of the house-holder 
came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seeds in thy 
field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An 
enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then 
that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye 
gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both 
grow together until the harvest : and in the time of harvest I 
will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and 
bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my 
barn." (St. Mt. 13:24-31.) We find nothing to commend itself 
in the idea that the parable of the Tares is an amplification of 
the parable of the Growing Seed in St. Mk. 4:26-29, and that its 
exposition was an interpretation emanating from the Evangelist, 
or in current use among the early disciples. 

The parable of the Drag-Net is close akin in spirit, but different 
in detail. "Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that 
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind : Which, when 
it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the 
good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the 
end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked 
from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: 
there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (St. Mt. 13:47-50.) 

140 



The Alloy of the Kingdom 141 

parables (St. Mt. 13:24-31; 47-50) is an essential part of the 
mystery of the Kingdom. But what is this revelation? 

The fondest dream of the Jews, as we have seen, was 
the Messianic Kingdom. With its advent every wrong would 
be righted. Evil would no longer triumph, but goodness, ac- 
cording to the standard of the age, would reign unquestioned. 
The prophets, indeed, had bequeathed this conception to subse- 
quent generations. In fact, it was prophecy — the coming of 
unconditioned goodness. Isaiah, for instance, sang: "Awake, 
awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful 
garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth there 
shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean" 
(52:1); "Thy people also shall be all righteous" (60:21); 
"And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be 
called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over 
it" (35 : 38). Zephaniah writes: "The remnant of Israel shall 
not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue 
be found in their mouth." Ezekiel, with all the passion of an 
ardent soul, pictures the return from exile, and the unification 
of Israel, and concludes with the glowing prediction of the full 
realization of the hope cherished for Israel by every prophetic 
heart: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 
(37:2i-27). 1 

1 But more convincing is the eloquent utterance which so distinctly 
colored the subsequent Messianic expectation : "And there shall 
come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow- 
out of his roots : and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, 
the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and 
might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord ; And 
shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord ; 
And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove 
after the hearing of his ears : But with righteousness shall he 
judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth : 
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with 
the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness 
shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his 
reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard 
shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion, and 
the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. And the 
cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down 
together : and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking 
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall 
put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt nor 



142 Jesus' Idea 

This is certainly an entrancing picture, and men who are 
enamored of a beautiful vision do not care to have it dispelled. 
In fact, an additional impetus was given to this conception in 
the time of Our Lord by John the Baptist. An unmis- 
takable part of his prophecy was that One should come to 
set up the long-awaited Kingdom, "Whose fan is in his hand, 
and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat 
into his garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquench- 
able fire" (St. Mt. 4:12). Thus the Kingdom of God was 
to be immaculate. This opinion, indeed, is the background of 
the parables of the Tares and the Drag-Net. In mercy, 
however, Jesus anticipates the future and dispels the Jewish 
illusion. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Had He 
left the Apostles to face the conditions which would soon con- 
front them, without any adequate preparation, the violent con- 
trast beween their expectation and the reality might have proved 
disastrous to themselves and to their cause. Hence, these 
parables are also the faithful wounds of a friend. 

With the general features of the parables, the Jews were 
quite familiar. The incidents were not supposititious. All knew, 
for instance, of the "bearded Darnel" (Lolium temulentum), 
a pernicious grass growing everywhere, which, in the blade, 
could not be distinguished from the wheat, but only mani- 
fested its noxious presence when the ear appeared. Or perhaps, 
as some think, the tare was not "the bearded darnel," but 
"creeping wheat" (Trilicun repens), which sends its pestilential 
roots stealthily under the earth until they intertwine with the 
roots of the wheat. Edersheim tells us that these tares were 
regarded as degenerate wheat by the Orientals, and suggested 
to the Jewish mind an idea current in Rabbinism : "the ground 
had been guilty of fornication before the Judgment of the 
Flood, so that when wheat was sown, tares sprang up." Nor 
were the circumstances of the sowing imaginary. Such instances 
of malicious mischief were not unknown among the Jews. 
Even Rome was compelled to legislate against similar practices. 
Travelers also find this form of vengeance in India to-day, 
and instances of evicted tenants resorting to such measures come 
to us from Ireland within recent years. 

destroy in all thy holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the 
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:1-9). 



The Alloy of the Kingdom 143 

The intent of the first of the parables was not so apparent, 
however, as its features. A dim, unconscious understanding of 
its meaning was present, perhaps; at any rate, a sufficient im- 
pression had been made by the recital to cause the disciples to 
ask for an interpretation, when the privacy of a dwelling gave 
opportunity. "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the 
field?" (St. Mt. 13:36). It is also noteworthy that the two 
parables which more pointedly violated the current Jewish 
expectation than any others, were those anxiously inquired 
about by the disciples, and selected by Our Lord for interpre- 
tation — the Sower, and the Tares. 

Jesus' interpretation of this parable is as follows: "He an- 
swered and said unto them: He that soweth the good seed is 
the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed are 
the children of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of 
the wicked one; the enemy that soweth them is the devil; the 
harvest is the end of the world ; and the reapers are the angels. 
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so 
shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of Man shall 
send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom 
all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall 
cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and 
gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the 
sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, 
let him hear" (St. Mt. 13:37-44). 

Now, the meaning of the parable becomes clear. It is the 
rude awakening from a sweet dream. The parable refutes 
the idea of the immaculate character of the Kingdom. Not- 
withstanding the presence of the Kingdom of God among men, 
the world will remain for some time the harvest field of good 
and bad. The Son of Man and Satan alike will sow seed 
and contend for the harvest, striving for the fruitage of the 
world at large, and of the individual life. And so cunning 
will Satan be in his sowing that it will be impossible for some 
time to differentiate the children of the devil from the children 
of the Kingdom. However, when the fruit appears, they become 
distinguishable. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Be- 
ing distinguished, consternation and surprise ensue. This soon 
develops into a keen desire to eradicate the Tares. Force seems 
to be the only available means. They must be pulled up! 



144 Jesus 1 Idea 

But Jesus says — No ! That would be most unwise. For while 
you uproot the Tares, the Wheat is likely to be uprooted. "Let 
both grow together." At the harvest time, the separation will 
be made, with absolute justice, and injury to none save the 
Tares. This, indeed, was the usual custom. "The allusion in 
the parable is in substantial accord with modern custom in the 
East, which is to leave the cleaning of the fields until the grain 
is well advanced toward the harvest, and can be readily dis- 
tinguished from all other plants. Then the women and chil- 
dren go into the fields and weed them out, so that an Oriental 
grain farm in harvest time is a model of cleanness and beauty." 
In this parable, then, the disciples were brought face to 
face with reality. If the Kingdom's analogy was growth, 
it must be subject to the laws and the vicissitudes of growth: 
it must suffer from weeds and tares. Indeed, even as the 
Master spoke, this was the present character of the Kingdom. 
The opening w T ords of the parable indicate this. They are not, 
"The Kingdom will be like," or "The Kingdom is like," in 
an indefinite sense. In the Greek of the original, they are 
"The Kingdom of God has become like/' i. e., the Kingdom was 
already fulfilling the conditions of the parable. 1 Jesus, indeed, 
was giving His personal experience and observation. There 
were already tares with the wheat. 

While the meaning of this parable is apparently obvious, 
around it have waged some of the fiercest conflicts of Christen- 
dom. Two points present difficulty. What is the meaning of 
"the field is the world"? What is the significance of Jesus' 
prohibition against uprooting the tares? Let us consider the 
words "the field is the world." In interpretations of the 
parable, these words are usually minimized, if not ignored. 
They are made to refer to the Christian Church, and the 
burden of the parable becomes that within the Church both bad 
and good men will be found. Opposed, however, to this in- 
terpretation stands the unequivocal declaration of Jesus — "the 
field is the world." If words mean anything, the borders of 
the Church are overstepped here, and the conception of the 
parable becomes world-wide. It is sometimes asserted, how- 
ever, that it would have been stupid to narrate such a parable 
to remind the disciples of the existence of good and bad men 
1 The Aorist tense, u/wtddr}, is used. 



The Alloy of the Kingdom 145 

in the world, a fact which they well knew, while it was sensible 
to teach of their presence in the Church, a fact which they 
would not appreciate. This, of course, implies an acquaintance 
with the idea of "the Church" which as yet was wholly foreign 
to the disciples. Further, we are told that "the world" here 
simply indicates the extensive character of the Kingdom. This, 
however, is not convincing. 

Let us remember one fact and we shall have no difficulty. 

A great need of the disciples, if not their greatest need, was 
to learn that the world, even with the Kingdom of God pres- 
ent in it, ("the Kingdom of heaven is at hand"), was not 
to present that ideal aspect with the absence of all evil and the 
presence of all good which they expected. With the advent of 
Christ, Satan had indeed fallen as lightning from heaven, 
and the power of evil had been broken, and all power in heaven 
and in earth given unto the Son of Man (St. Lu. 10:18) ; yet, 
because the rule of God over the world and men was to be 
voluntary and a gradual growth, indefinitely and until God's 
own appointed time, would evil mingle with the good, the 
children of the Kingdom with the children of the Devil. Jesus 
meant exactly what He said: "the field is the world." Of 
course, if this condition is true of the world at large, it is 
also true of the Church. The principle is general: the applica- 
tion to the Church is secondary. Further, a casual glance 
at the parable will show that in the implied judgment, far 
more than the judgment of the Christian Church is indicated: 
it is unmistakably a world judgment. 

This conception, however, not only contradicted prevalent 
Jewish opinion, but it also ran counter to one of the most 
ineradicable convictions of the human heart. That anything 
with which God has to do, should contain an admixure of evil 
is apparently beyond the comprehension of the human mind. If 
this is God's world, why should evil be in it? Because evil 
is present, some conclude that it is not God's world. Thus, in 
the parables of the Tares and the Drag-Net, we stand face 
to face with the mystery of evil: the mystery which has 
defied solution, and which will probably remain insoluble, until 
all things shall become clear. Jesus certainly gives no solution 
of the problem; He simply seeks to bring good out of evil. 
Evil to Him is not a mystery to be solved, but a fact to be 



146 Jesus' Idea 

reckoned with. 

But how shall it be reckoned with, especially as it is mani- 
fested in the lives of men? The parable presents this subject for 
consideration. Shall the tares be weeded out? In discussing 
this point, we must note that Jesus gave no interpretation of 
this feature of the parable, consequently we are thrown upon 
our own resources, and must form our conclusions from the 
parable itself, without aid from any suggestions of Our Lord. 
What, then, are our conclusions? They lie along these lines. 

Because of the presence of evil in the Kingdom, mankind 
is surprised and indignant. This feature of the parable is 
eminently true of life. Indeed, this surprise and indignation 
is really humanity's tribute to virtue. It is undeniable testi- 
mony to the abnormality of present conditions ; a protest against 
the permanence of these conditions; and an emphatic indica- 
tion that stability cannot be gained unless it is founded upon 
right and truth, and that such stability will and must be at- 
tained ere humanity can be content and cease to be divinely 
restless. Now this Jesus did not condemn ; it was only when this 
spirit would manifest itself in the idea of separation and proceed 
to the method of force that Jesus intervenes with His prohibi- 
tion. There was to be no separation of the wheat and the 
tares ; the tares were not to be uprooted. 1 

Mankind, however, is slow to learn this truth. The impa- 

1 Certain Roman Catholic expositors have sought to break the 
force of the Master's prohibition, by declaring the command not 
to uproot in effect only when there is danger of uprooting the 
wheat with the tares. This is the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas; 
while, according to Archbishop Trench, Maldonatus adds that in 
the specific case, the householder is to judge of the existence of 
such danger, and that in as much as the Pope now represents the 
householder, the question: "Wilt thou that we go and gather up 
the tares?" is to be addressed to him, and the subsequent action is 
to be determined by his answer. He urges, therefore, that Roman 
Catholic princes imitate the zeal of the servants of the parable, 
even if such zeal at times demands the restraint of the Pope, rather 
than be guilty of the indifference to heresy and the heretic exhibited 
by many. The unsoundness of such reasoning is at once apparent. 
It is only one of many illustrations of that externalizing tendency 
which vitiates so much of Roman Catholic exegesis. Such an 
interpretation plainly contradicts the spirit of the parable. It is 
only a lame apology for Rome's inquisitorial methods : in other 
words, it is ex post facto interpretation. 



The Alloy of the Kingdom 147 

tience of the servants, with their idea of separation and their 
proposition of resort to force, is a perpetually recurring char- 
acteristic of the race. How large a part it has played, and 
is playing, in the life even of the Church is evident at a glance. 
Many to-day, for instance, remain apart from the Church be- 
cause, as they assert, there are hypocrites within it. No man, 
indeed, can deny their existence. Unfortunately, Satan is one 
of the largest stockholders in the Christian Church; but this is 
to be expected after the parable of the Tares, and men have 
no right to demand absolute perfection of the Church. It is 
contrary to the world principle: life is everywhere a parable 
of the Tares and the Wheat. But, taking a wider view, we 
see that well-nigh every schism among Christians has re- 
sulted from misguided zeal and an erroneous conception of duty, 
in which the matter of pristine importance seemed to be the 
separation of the Wheat from the Tares. The aim has been 
the impossible one of founding an unalloyed communion, in 
which spirituality should have undisputed sway and faith 
know no admixture of error. And every schismatic movement 
has signally failed to do that which it set out to do. Perhaps 
measurably free from impurities for awhile, evil and error 
soon creep in to mar the fair aspect, and to sow again the seeds 
of dissension and strife. Wliat is the result ? Only another 
schism, only another attempt, doomed to failure as soon as 
attempted, to have a pure communion morally or intellectually. 
The idea of the servants is, in fact, the multiplication of 
schisms. 

This parable is also, if our judgment be correct, the con- 
demnation of heresy-hunting. The knowledge of God's truth, 
no less than the sovereignty of God is a growth, and being 
a growth, it must be subject to the laws and vicissitudes 
of growth. Satan sows false ideas, no less readily than false 
principles of living. The world being what it is, immorality 
and falsehood must be intermingled with morality and truth. 
The Church will also show this lamentable admixture. Hence 
it is as foolish to expect, and as impossible to have, a Church 
with no intellectual error, no unsoundness of faith, as it is to 
expect to have a Church free from moral unsoundness. In- 
tellectual Tares will grow with the Wheat of Truth. And 
men are no more justified in forcibly eradicating the intel- 



148 Jesus' Idea 

lectual Tares, than they are in eradicating the moral Tares. 
Indeed, there is no more pitiable spectacle in any age than 
the ecclesiastical blood-hound, keen on the scent of heresy. 
The spirit of the servants, however, is essentially the spirit of 
the persecutor also. Contrast this anxious care for truth, 
with its stereotyped dogmas, inerrant councils, infallible Popes, 
and remorseless Inquisitions, with the sublime trust in truth 
which characterized Jesus as He entrusted the revelation of 
Heaven to the tender mercies of men— unsystematized, un- 
stereotyped, even unwritten, without council or Pope or In- 
quisition. Truth indeed, as we have seen, is self-propagating, 
and it perpetually chants the paean of victory. The preventive 
of heresy is the affirmation of truth ; the corrective of heresy 
is the fuller affirmation of truth. Indeed, it may be said that 
the cause of morality is certainly never helped by the in- 
quisitorial method; the cause of truth is always the loser by it. 
In fact, the endeavor to uphold truth by inquisitorial methods 
indicates a loss of faith alike in God, in humanity and in 
truth. It is really distrust of faith; a practical denial of 
faith — a doubt as to the winning power of truth. 

Returning now to the fundamental thought of this parable, 
we see that it gives insight into history both Ancient and 
Modern. History, indeed, is the parable of the Tares and 
the Wheat. Every department of human activity, also, serves 
to illustrate the principle disclosed in the parable. The law 
of the Tares and the Wheat is the law of life, domestic, com- 
mercial, social, political, and religious. Life everywhere is a 
battle of ideas, and a struggle for ideals. Yet this condition 
will not always prevail. There will be a denouement. There 
will be a harvest. "Let both grow together until the harvest." 

To accentuate this, and to prevent the utter bewilderment 
and dejection of His followers in His own, and in tvtry age, 
Jesus narrates the parable of the Drag-Net. The parable 
of the Tares emphasizes the present commingling of the good 
and the evil, and cautions against impatience and resort to 
force in attempting separation. The parable of the Drag-Net 
indicates with emphatic promise, that a final and thorough 
separation, if such must be made, will be made by God, and 
thus reveals why any attempt on the part of man to do this 
is futile and unreasonable. "Vengeance is mine: I will 



The Alloy of the Kingdom 149 

repay, saith the Lord." The very construction of the parable 
in its omissions, as well as in its statements, indicates its 
theme: the present admixture, and the future separation. 
The Kingdom of God is like a Drag-Net. The word is 
Sagene, which means "a large fishing net," used to catch fish 
which swam in shoals. Similarly, the Kingdom of God is cast 
into the sea of life and embraces humanity, gathering in all 
sorts and conditions of men. When the net is full, and is 
hauled up on the shore of eternity, God will do the work of 
separation, which men are so eager to do here. Such, we 
believe, is the interpretation of these two parables of Our Lord. 

It only remains to add that the parables of the Tares and the 
Drag-Net are the terrible indictment of much in life, and 
of a vast deal of ecclesiastical history. The parable of the 
Tares, with its theory of separation, is indeed the life-like 
picture of the actual Church in many ages. The Drag-Net 
which gathers of every kind, is the likeness of the ideal Church. 
The former is Ecclesiastical History; the latter should have 
been Ecclesiastical History. The practical truth of both 
parables, however, is well expressed by St. Paul: "But in a great 
house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but 
also of wood and of earth; and some to honor and some to 
dishonor." (St. Tim. 2:20.) 

At the conclusion of these parables, Jesus, addressing His 
auditors, "saith unto them, Have ye understood all these 
things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said He unto 
them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the 
kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is a householder, 
which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and 
old" (St. Mt. 13:51-52). Apt, indeed, was the remark. As 
they listened to the Master's words, the disciples were indeed 
bringing forth out of their treasure — the Kingdom of God — 
conceptions and ideas, both new and old. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE EXTENT OF THE KINGDOM 

One who has followed our study thus far would not expect 
Jesus to lend the weight of His authority to the popular 
conception of the extent of the Kingdom of God. Jesus, in 
fact, taught the universal character of the Kingdom. As soon 
as this statement is made, however, a well-known fact arises 
in apparent repudiation. Jesus, Himself, hardly set foot beyond 
the borders of His country, and personally confined His labors 
to His countrymen, while the Apostles imitated His example, 
at least for a time. This is evident from Jesus' own life; 
from His instructions to the disciples before their first mis- 
sionary tour: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into 
any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel" (St. Mt. 10:5-6) ; and in 
the subsequent conduct of the Apostles after their Master's 
death. 

These facts, however, do not indicate the exclusive or secta- 
rian character of the Kingdom. The precedence accorded to the 
Jews is more easily explained upon other grounds. For in- 
stance, the time for the mission to the Gentiles had not come. 
Again, the great yearning love of Jesus for His own people — 
a love by no means inconsistent with that borne toward all 
mankind — would also prompt such precedence. Further, a 
beginning had to be made somewhere. The Kingdom could 
not be founded everywhere at once. Naturally, then, the 
soil of Judaism was the most available. Nor had the Apostles 
as yet outgrown their national prejudices in measure sufficient 
to warrant the inauguration of a world-wide mission. Their 
knowledge, too, and insight into the nature, laws and opera- 
tion of the Kingdom was exceedingly limited; hence it was 
better for them at the first to proclaim to their countrymen 
with John the Baptist, the simple truth — "the Kingdom of 
Heaven is at hand." 

150 



The Extent of the Kingdom 151 

The reason for this precedence, however, which most strongly 
commends itself, is this. Israel as a nation had been chosen 
by God for a specific work, as we have seen. Opportunity 
after opportunity had been given for the fulfilment of this 
mission, but the nation had always proved a stubborn and a 
stiff-necked people. Now Israel's last opportunity had come. 
The people had mistreated the servants of the Lord of the 
Vineyard; yet would they not reverence His Son? (St. Mt. 
21). God is patient with nations, as well as with individuals, 
giving them many chances, and overlooking much obduracy. 
Will not the nation at last awaken and respond? To give the 
nation ample opportunity was the purpose of Jesus' three vigor- 
ous, carefully planned and systematic preaching tours through- 
out the land. The Jews were to be converted, if possible ; then 
they as a people were to convert the world. They were to 
become the fulfilment of prophecy — "a light to lighten the 
Gentiles" Thus a far more effective agency would be wielded 
for the establishment of the Kingdom than the labors, however 
zealous, of individual men. But this hope was disappointed. 
The parables of the Vineyard and of the Marriage of the 
King's Son were prophetic of truth. Human nature will dwell 
rather upon the thought of election than of vocation, of privilege 
than of duty, of self than of others. 1 

Notwithstanding the precedence of the Jew, however, the 
Kingdom of God, in the view of Jesus, was "universal in 
design and scope." We have His most explicit testimony 
that the Kingdom would know no territorial or racial limita- 
tions. If we may believe Saint Luke, this catholicity of sym- 
pathy manifested itself at the very outset of Jesus' career. 
Upon delivering the Inaugural Address at Nazareth, the 
Master became convinced that "no prophet is accepted in his 
own country." He was comforted in the thought, however, 

1 That the precedence of the Jew was seemly and fitting, and in 
line with St. Paul's subsequent saying, "To the Jew first, and also 
to the Greek!" (Rom. 1:16) is evident from Jesus' own words. In 
St. Mt. 8:12, Jesus calls the Jews "Sons of the Kingdom," while 
St. Mk. 21 143 shows the priority accorded to the Jews : "Therefore 
the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to 
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." While this passage 
indicates Israel's precedence, it is also the death-warrant of exclusive 
and sectarian hopes. 



152 Jesus' Idea 

that a prophet would be received outside His own land, and 
cited in support of His contention the reception of Elijah by 
the widow of Sidonian Sarepta, and Elisha's cure of the leprosy 
of the Syrian Naaman (St. Lu. 4:25-27; I Ki. 17; II Ki. 5). 
This incident also serves to show the temper of the Jews in 
regard to the overstepping of the accepted national limitations 
of the Kingdom. "And all they in the synagogue, when they 
heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up, and 
thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of 
the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast 
him down headlong." 

The universal sympathy of Jesus is also indicated in His 
attitude toward the Syro-Phoenician woman, notwithstanding 
the singularity of its mode of expression, and in His willing- 
ness to converse with the woman of Samaria. Racial limita- 
tions are also distinctly transcended in the teaching of St. 
Matthew 8:n-i2. 1 One of the greatest privileges accompany- 
ing the Messianic Kingdom, according to Jewish thought, 
was "participating in splendid festive entertainments along 
with the patriarchs of the nation." This thought was the source 
of immense satisfaction to the Jew, while it was made to militate 
against the Gentiles, being understood in this sense: "In the 
future world (God said) I will spread a great table for you, 
which the Gentiles shall see and be ashamed." In contradis- 
tinction to this, Jesus declares that many Gentiles will become 
believers, and will have part in the joyous happiness of the 
patriarchs of old, while those who apparently have every 
right to the feast, shall be in the darkness "which is outside the 
(illuminated) banqueting hall and in despair." 

Plain hints as to the universality of the Kingdom are found 
also in the wide-extending branches of the parable of the 
Mustard Seed, and in the parable of the Drag-Net, which is 
thrown not only around one nation as heretofore, but around 
all peoples, and gathers "fish" of every kind and character. The 
parable of the Good Samaritan also has the note of universality. 

*"And I say unto you, that many shall come from the East and 
the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob 
in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall 
be cast out into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth," 



The Extent of the Kingdom 153 

"Who is my neighbor?" asks the disputatious lawyer. "Every 
one whom you can serve," replies Jesus. Humanity is to 
measure its opportunity for service only by man's need of 
service. The satirical rebuke of Jewish reasoning as it is 
revealed in this parable in the unsympathetic attitude of the 
priest and the Levite, professional and "ordained" religionists, 
and the exaltation of the charity of the unorthodox Samaritan, 
was a stinging blow to Pharisaic religion, and exhibited from 
the Jewish standpoint a most dangerous latitude and laxity. 
Truly, the independence of Jesus was marvelous. 

Full of interest also is the visit of certain Greeks to Jesus 
during the sad week of the Crucifixion (St. Jno. 12:20-22). 
Their coming, Jesus regarded as a kind of first fruits of the 
rich harvest which He was to gather beyond the borders 
of Israel. His joy and His words, especially the impressive 
and closing declaration, are significant: "I, if I be lifted up 
from the earth will draw all men unto me" (vs. 32). Worthy 
of note also are the words spoken, when anointed with the 
very precious ointment by Mary at Bethany (St. Mt. 26:6-12) : 
"Verily, I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be 
preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this 
woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her." 

These incidental references of a busy life, however, ulti- 
mately merge into broad and explicit declarations. Consider, for 
instance, the words of the Great Commission: "Go ye there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded 
you" (St. Mt. 28:19). These words are also important: 
"But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come 
upon you, and we shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and 
in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the 
earth" (Acts 1:8). Other references might be cited, but 
these will suffice to show that the Kingdom in Jesus' thought 
was unlimited territorially and racially. While a precedence 
was accorded to the Jews, the restriction, as had been the in- 
tention with Israel of old, was but the prelude to universalism. 

This is not all, however. All social barriers also were to 
fall before the Kingdom. This the Jews simply could not 
understand. Caste held high carnival among them. While 



154 Jesus' Idea 

the nation as a whole was the aristocracy of God, the Phari- 
sees were an aristocracy within an aristocracy. The Jews, in- 
deed, floundered perpetually among fallacious distinctions, ever 
drawing the cords where they ought not, and failing to tighten 
them where they ought. The Kingdom of God, however, as 
it was presented by Jesus, repudiated this conventionality 
totally. It was not intended alone for those esteeming them- 
selves the "unco guid" or the "rigidly righteous": all humanity 
could enter its portals. The door was open wide. Indeed, 
when the Kingdom graciously received Levi, the publican, 
Magdalene the harlot, and the dying thief, the death of class 
distinctions and prejudices was signified so far as the Kingdom 
of God was concerned. This fact is astounding, not only in its 
indication of the universality of the Kingdom, but from the 
unmistakable hint which Jesus gave, that among the outcast 
and the fallen the Kingdom would find its most propitious soil, 
and reap its richest harvest. Why Jesus regarded such per- 
sons as the more propitious soil is seen in St. Luke 7 136-48, and 
especially in the words: "Her sins, which are many, are 
forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, 
the same loveth little/' 

Jesus, indeed, always manifested keen interest in the un- 
desirable classes. In Matthew's house, He seems to have 
attended a feast of publicans and sinners, which was arranged 
especially that He might meet with them (St. Lu. 5:29). 
His conduct in this respect often gave rise to scandal. The 
questionable "respectability" and "orthodoxy" of the day anx- 
iously inquired, "How is it that he eateth and drinketh with 
sinners?" (St. Mk. 2:15-17), and contemptuously denominated 
Him "the friend of publicans and sinners," and "a wine-bibber 
and a glutton." Happily, however, for truth's sake, Jesus 
treated the current conventionality with supreme disdain. Yet 
there was nothing . of narrowness in His sympathies. He 
dined with the influential Pharisee (St. Lu. 7:37) upon invita- 
tion, as readily as with the publican, showing that if He had no 
prejudice against the outcast, He entertained no demagogic 
hatred of the rich and well-to-do. 1 

x The distinctness with which Jesus taught the removal of all 
social barriers to entrance into the Kingdom is fully revealed in the 
parable and discourse recorded in St. Luke 14:12-24. 



The Extent of the Kingdom 1 55 

Our conclusion as to the universality of the Kingdom has 
now been reached after consideration of the explicit teaching of 
Jesus. It is equally evident, however, in His implicit teach- 
ing. A priori reasoning here is as effective as a posteriori 
reasoning. The universality of the Kingdom inheres, indeed, 
in the nature of both God and man. One great outstanding 
fact of Jesus' teaching is the Fatherhood of God. In common 
with mankind He believed in God, although His idea of God 
was not the common idea of His age, nor is it the popular idea 
to-day. Indeed, the immense superiority of Jesus' conception 
is only realized when contrasted with the conceptions of His 
contemporaries. While the intelligence of Rome was divided 
in allegiance between atheism and pantheism, which alike repre- 
sented violent reactions from unworthy ideas of Deity, the 
populace mocked the rites of their ancestral religion, and 
attributed to the Gods the licentiousness and vulgar amours 
of men. Out of this hideous confusion arose the tendency to 
deify the emperors — the most potent representatives of power 
then within the ken of man. Thus was Augustus deified by 
decree of the Roman Senate. The worship of the Emperor, in- 
deed, soon became the universal worship of the Empire. Tem- 
ples, with statues of the new-found God, were erected in Gaul, 
Spain, Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Greece, where, through 
priesthoods and an elaborate cultus, subjects paid divine honors 
to the God of the world. Yet this God himself might be the 
victim of a superstition as base as that which compelled Tiberius 
at the sound of thunder, to seek refuge in a crown of laurel 
because "it was denied that this kind of leaf was ever touched 
by lightning," or which saw a mighty Caesar, flushed with vic- 
tory, pitiably repeating a magical formula against a feared 
Nemesis, upon entering his chariot. The background offered 
for Jesus' idea of God by the Gentile world was dark indeed. 

The solitary oasis in this desert of infidelity and supersti- 
tion was found among the most abject of peoples and despised 
of races. The Jew in Palestine and in the little Synagogue 
which soon appeared wherever he had gone voluntarily, or had 
been carried a captive, notwithstanding the excrescences of 
Pharisaism and Sadduceeism, presented to the world in the 
translucent pages of his Scriptures the idea of a God who was 
primarily One and a Person; so august as to defy representa- 



156 Jesus' Idea 

tion; Omnipotent and Omniscient; Eternal, and in nature of 
Transcendent Purity, the inveterate enemy of sin; who had 
selected a solitary nation of the earth to represent Him to the 
peoples of the earth. Such, in brief, was the Jewish idea of 
God. Now all that was true in the Jewish conception, Jesus 
borrowed, and upon it reared the imposing superstructure of 
His own idea. It was His distinctive contribution, however, 
which gave to the idea a conquering power, never possible to 
the Jewish conception. This contribution may be summed up 
in the words, "God is Father." And to understand the meaning 
of this we must interpret it as, "God is Love/' 

The Jews recognized the Fatherhood of God chiefly in two 
distinct senses. He was a Father in the sense of Creator or 
Progenitor. He was also a Father in that He was interested 
in, and loved Israel, and, in later times, especially her King. 
This conception, however, fell far short of the splendid view 
entertained by Jesus. In His thought, God was not only the 
Infinite Creator, but the Infinite Father who was keenly con- 
cerned about all creation and full of love for all things. With 
Jesus, this passionate regard of God extended to even the small- 
est things: the grass of the fields, the birds of the air. "Be- 
hold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they 
reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth 
them" (St. Mt. 6:26; cf. 28, 30 vs.). 1 If God's solicitude for 
the trivial is so manifest, we may expect a most pronounced 
regard for Man. "Are ye not much better than they?" asks 
Jesus, in fact, of the disciples after describing God's love for 
the fowls of the air (St. Mt. 6:26). It was formerly de- 
bated with much heat whether God was the Father of all men 
in the sense of love, or only of Christians, i.e., of those who 
recognized their sonship and obeyed the Father. How this 
question could arise, it is difficult to understand in view of 
Jesus' teaching. That God is the Universal Father is, indeed, 
an axiom of His revelation. Yet that this Fatherhood does not 
mean the same thing to all men is also an integral part of 
His truth, as the late Professor Bruce so admirably points out 

1 Science, to-day, as it follows the footsteps of the Creator, and 
unfolds more and more the methods of His thoughtful providence, 
is furnishing data of invaluable assistance in justly appreciating 
this teaching of Jesus, 



The Extent of the Kingdom 157 

in his book, "The Kingdom of God." An earthly father, in 
fact, finds the fulfilment of his fatherhood conditioned in many 
ways by the bearing of his son. The full love of the parent 
can only be bestowed upon a child who in turn reciprocates the 
parental affection. Dutiful sonship is a necessity to perfect 
Fatherhood. Hence God, although the Father of all men, can- 
not be a Father to the evil and to the righteous in the same 
degree. 

Professor Bruce notes, however, that the Fatherhood of God 
toward all men expends itself along two distinct yet related 
lines of affection — regard for both the temporal and the spirit- 
ual needs of man. His careful providence for the temporal 
necessities of the sinner is indicated by Jesus in St. Matthew 
5 : 45 : "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, 
and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." The perfec- 
tion of the Deity itself is illustrated in the blessing bestowed 
upon those who curse Him. The solicitude of God over the 
spiritual condition of the sinful man is the preeminent thought 
of the exquisite parables recorded in the fifteenth chapter of 
St. Luke, — verily a miniature Gospel in themselves. The bur- 
den of these parables — the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the 
Lost Son — may be expressed in the words of St. Matthew 
18: 14: "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in 
heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Sin, though 
it be as black as Hell itself, and as malodorous, cannot sepa- 
rate the erring child from the affection of the Heavenly Parent. 
He seeks the lost, and looks again and again for the return 
of the wanderer. The conduct of Our Lord also reveals the 
affection of the Father-God, no less than His words. Were 
we deprived of the latter, we could draw a just inference as 
to the universal Fatherhood of God from the graciousness of 
Jesus' bearing, His insight, and His sympathy. 1 

1 To a dastardly violation of the shepherding quality inherent in 
true religion, we owe the teaching of the Master about "The Goo4 
Shepherd." Incensed because a former blind man had come to 
believe in the divine power of the restorer of his sight, the 
Pharisees proceeded forthwith to excommunicate him. Jesus, hear- 
ing of their action, sought for the poor fellow, and comforted him 
with the knowledge that He alone was the door through which 
men could enter into eternal life; while He unsparingly condemned 
the ignorance of those who, instead of seeking the spiritual welfare 



158 Jesus' Idea 

The care of God for the temporal needs of the saints, or 
children of the Kingdom, Jesus sets forth at length in a passage 
which we have already considered. Perhaps it would be well to 
quote it, however. Even long familiarity with it has not im- 
pressed its meaning upon Christian thought. "Therefore take 
no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we 
drink ? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed ? ( for after all these 
things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father know- 
eth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first 
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness ; and all these things 
shall be added unto you" (St. Mt. 6:31-33). Here, indeed, 
as we have seen, is the absolute promise that if any person will 
make the sovereignty of God the sole aim in life, God will at- 
tend to it that food, drink, and raiment are had in abundance. 
Finally, the devotion of the Father to the spiritual needs of the 
child of the Kingdom is best seen in the gift of the Holy Spirit — 
the Infinite Spirit coming into touch with the finite spirit of 
man, refreshing, guiding, developing. But more of this anon. 1 

In view of this revelation of the character of God, we see 
that the Kingdom of God must be universal in aim. The God 
of Jesus could be satisfied with nothing else. The universality 
of the Kingdom, however, is as inherent in the nature of man 

of the man, turned him adrift. To this procedure, Jesus opposed 
Himself as "The Door and The Good Shepherd" (St. John 9:10). 
1 That God would not always appear even to spiritual insight as a 
Father, Jesus well knew. He adverts to the fact in the suggestive 
parables of "The Selfish Neighbor" and "The Unjust Judge" (St. 
Lu. 11:5-13; 18:1-5). These parables, however, do not in the least 
impugn the Fatherhood of God. They only represent the manner 
in which God seems to act at times. Why the Deity permits this 
impression, no man can tell. Christianity does not answer wholly 
all the questions in heaven and earth, yet it does throw all needful 
light upon them. Of course, the truthfulness of this idea of God 
may be denied, yet it is evident that Jesus claimed to give an 
authoritative revelation. "No man knows the Son, but the Father; 
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom- 
soever the Son will reveal him" (St. Mt. 11:27). Again: "Jesus 
saith unto him, Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou 
not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; 
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou 
not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words 
that I speak unto you I speak not of myself : but the Father that 
dwelleth'in me, he doeth the works" (St. John 14:9-10). 



The Extent of the Kingdom 159 

as in the character of God. 

Jesus of Nazareth, indeed, had the ability to see things in 
their just proportion. While the world of His day measured 
the value of man by some accident of birth, genius, power, 
wealth or station, fastening its gaze upon the extroardinary and 
the exceptional, Jesus measured the value of man simply by the 
gift of being, affixing His attention upon the ordinary and the 
general. 1 In the thought of Jesus, every man was made in the 
image of God. Nothing more was needed to dignify his na- 
ture; nothing additional could dignify his nature. Although 
stripped of every accident of existence, and as naked as naked- 
ness itself, man was yet richly clothed with the habiliments of 
Deity. Each individual was accordingly of immense value. 

Proof of this is easily forthcoming. "What shall it profit 
a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" 
or, as St. Luke says, "his own self?" "Or what shall a man give 
in exchange for his soul?" (St. Mk. 8: 36-37; St. Mt. 16: 26; 
St. Lu. 9:25). Here the whole world is weighed in the bal- 
ances against a single human soul, and is found wanting. Con- 
sider again the passage quoted above, and its context. "Even so 
it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one 
of these little ones should perish" (St. Mt. 18: 14). Man's 
value is also apparent in such sayings as these: "The very hairs 
of your head are all numbered;" "Ye are of more value than 
many sparrows;" "How much then is a man better than a 
sheep?" (St. Mt. 10:30; 12:12). Especially important is 
the declaration of Our Lord, found in St. Matthew 5:29-30: 
"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should 
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from 
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should 
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" 
(cf. St. Mt. 18:8-9; St. Mk. 9:43-47; St. Lu. 12: 13-21). 

This passage is not to be understood literally, of course. 
The language is highly figurative, yet the more forceful because 

1 The Hebrews offered the only apparent exception to this rule. 
Every Hebrew was honored by virtue of his birthright. Yet, as 
has been shown repeatedly, "It was Hebrew nature, rather than 
human nature, which even to him possessed intrinsic grandeur." 



160 Jesus 7 Idea 

figurative. The right eye and hand represent what is most 
valuable and useful. The words "offend thee" really mean 
"cause thee to stumble." The idea is that some one is walking 
in the path of rectitude, when suddenly something causes the 
person to stumble in his path, and fall into wickedness. "Pluck 
it out," "cut it off" and "cast it from thee" are expressions of 
decided action, and call emphatically for the removal of the 
cause of the stumbling. To interpret this language literally 
would be to obey the letter of the law, and to ignore the spirit. 
Suppose, however, for the sake of argument that we could have 
an eyeless, footless, and handless humanity, would it be a sinless 
humanity? Would not the heart still remain? And is it not 
out of the heart that the issues of life and death proceed? The 
organs and the senses of the body are indeed God-given, legiti- 
mate, valuable and useful. Yet they may become the organs 
of guilt, "the inlets of temptation, the outlets of surrender." 

It is only when we interpret this saying of Jesus' as a fig- 
ure of speech that its significance really dawns upon us. The 
eye means the thing seen, the hand, the thing done; together 
they represent perhaps the active and the passive sides of our 
nature. And Jesus' thought is that whenever anything that 
we see or do causes us to sin, it is to be summarily renounced. 
This is not that hideous caricature of Christianity which calls 
itself asceticism, but simply the necessary renunciation of self 
which inheres in all true religion. It is the Cross which wins 
the Crown. And this willingness to suffer dire loss is profitable 
because it ministers to man's eternal gain. Our minds are likely 
to consider only the present; Jesus considers both the present 
and the future. Eternity is longer than time. Present loss is 
set over against future gain. Jesus is appealing for the interests 
of the higher life. Self-indulgence means self-destruction. 
Hence the emphatic declaration of the passage: "Partial loss 
in this world rather than total loss in the next." Could lan- 
guage more forcibly indicate the value of each human soul? 

Such teaching and conduct, as we have described, bring 
forcibly to light Jesus' interest in man simply as man. Riches, 
station, religion, and even sin, were not considered primary 
factors in determining individual worth. There was a value 
and an importance attached to man simply as man. Human 
society is undoubtedly a heterogeneous mass, and embraces "all 



The Extent of the Kingdom 161 

sorts and conditions of men." But, in the thought of Jesus, 
the unifying bond is manhood. The average person to-day — 
even the average Christian, we fear — notes and dwells upon the 
rank and the grades which separate men. His whole view of 
life, and his conduct are conditioned by these. Jesus, however, 
let us remember, dwelt solely upon the common manhood which 
unites men. He was the Incarnation of the Democratic Spirit. 
With Him, in fact, this spirit was born into the world with 
power, and through Him it is transforming the world. His, 
indeed, was the catholicity of the very sympathies of God. This 
is the more remarkable when we consider (humanly speaking) 
the lowliness of His birth, and the character of His early 
environment — the carpenter shop of obscure Nazareth. While 
such surroundings would usually beget sympathy with the 
lowly, they would also mean distrust, suspicion, and dislike of 
the more favored classes. This, however, was not true of 
Jesus. Even His bitterest enemies recognized that He was "no 
respecter of persons." High and low, rich and poor, reputable 
and disreputable, were treated alike by Him, and all simply 
as men. The Church's failure — not theoretical, but practical — 
to imitate the Master in this has been a most important factor 
in the present alienation of the masses. When the Church 
shall follow the example of Jesus, the common people will 
hear it gladly, as they heard the Master of old. When the 
clergy, indeed, show no greater respect for the rich than the 
poor, the great than the humble, for the ecclesiastical dignitary, 
gowned, hooded, bedecked and bedizzened, than for the poorly 
dressed laboring man, and shall occupy the lofty and impreg- 
nable position of Jesus, from which they treat all men with 
that high respect due to man, even if partiality must be shown, 
reverencing more highly the laborer than the dignitary, if his 
manhood be of a nobler type, then will the world believe in 
the Christianity of the Church, for it will recognize the Chris- 
tianity of Christ. His great assumption was that the dignity 
of manhood — the gift of God — was infinitely greater than any 
earthly dignity, religious or secular — the gift of men. This, 
at least, was the pure democracy of Jesus. To the eternal shame 
of the Church, be it said, it is not even in reasonable measure 
the democracy of the Church. 

Jesus' idea, indeed, of the essential value of human nature 



1 62 Jesus' Idea 

in itself j when stripped of all superadded honors, gifts, and dig- 
nities, has always amazed mankind. Indeed, to esteem "a no- 
body" is ever an offense in the eyes of a Pharisaic world. But 
when honor and esteem are persisted in toward those who are 
stripped of even naked respectability, and clothed with the igno- 
miny of evil living, humanity's confusion becomes worse con- 
founded. The degraded, the fallen, the outcast however, as 
we have seen, were the objects of Jesus' pity and love. His 
regard for them is fully revealed in the parables of the Lost 
Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son. Here we see that 
those whom the Pharisees thought a rubbish pile ready for 
ignition, Jesus regarded as a rich harvest to be reaped. Indeed, 
their very condition made a tremendous appeal to Him. In 
the Lost Sheep, for instance, He sees the folly and the helpless- 
ness of the lost soul; in the Lost Coin, the utter uselessness of 
the most useful of all things — money, when lost, is made to 
reveal the absolute waste of the lost life; while in the exquisite 
story of the Lost Son — an optimistic biography of a sinner — 
Jesus discloses the self-conscious misery and degradation of the 
lost being. To Jesus, indeed, humanity was splendid, though 
in ruins. 

The surpassing value of human nature, however, has been 
shown in the preceding pages also in that Jesus regarded it 
as the congenial soil for the Kingdom of God. He regarded 
man as the possessor of both a moral and an intellectual na- 
ture, which was responsive to the deepest spiritual truths of 
God. His conduct toward man always proceeded upon the 
presupposition so beautifully expressed by Browning: 



"But friends, 
Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise 
From outward things, whate'er you may believe : 
There is an inmost centre in us all, 
Where truth abides in fulness ; and around 
Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in, 
This perfect, clear perception — which is truth; 
A baffling and perverting carnal mesh 
Blinds it and makes all error; and 'to know.' 
Rather consists in opening out a way 
Whence the imprisoned splendor may escape, 
Than in effecting entrance for a light 
Supposed to be without." 



The Extent of the Kingdom 163 

Preeminently, however, is Jesus' idea of the dignity of 
man seen in His unequivocal belief in man's immortality. He 
said little about this, it is true. It is, nevertheless, like His 
belief in God, an axiomatic truth of His teaching. There was 
no need for special stress upon the subject, for His countrymen 
believed in the truth — all, indeed, except the Sadducean world- 
lings — thus offering a striking contrast to the great Gentile 
world, in which there was such patent disbelief, or painful 
uncertainty with regard to the life after death. Even a Herod, 
aroused by the increasing reputation of Jesus, spoke of Him 
as John the Baptist risen from the dead. On one occasion, 
however, our Lord did express Himself unequivocally. The 
Sadducees, seeking to discredit the popular belief in immor- 
tality, ask Him, if a woman shall have been married seven 
times, to whom shall she belong after the resurrection. Jesus' 
reply is convincing: "And Jesus answering said unto them, 
Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, 
neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from 
the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but 
are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the 
dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, 
how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God 
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? He 
is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye there- 
fore do greatly err" (St. Mk. 12:24-28). 

This reply at once rebukes incredulity as to the power of 
God, and declares that God is not the God of the dead, but of 
the living j clearly implying that all live unto Him. The un- 
belief, indeed, which hesitates to accept a future life for man 
in the face of the marvelous evidences of the Divine Pow T er, dis- 
played in the visible creation, and which is blind to the impli- 
cation of their Scriptures, is to Jesus absurd, and worthy of 
censure. Faith, however, in the immortality of man, even 
though it were unexpressed by Jesus, is the essential presup- 
position of all His teaching. Without this cardinal truth, His 
entire teaching is aimless and preposterous. Thus we find that 
the Kingdom of God must be universal in extent and aim, in 
view of the essential dignity of human nature, no less than 
in view of the character of God. 

Finally, the character of the Kingdom itself predicates its 



164 Jesus 9 Idea 

universality. Inward and spiritual primarily, its extent is alone 
conditioned by the presence or the absence of similar qualities. 
The necessary qualifications for entrance belong to man simply 
as man. External considerations have no weight. The essential 
qualities, as we have seen, are those of mind and heart as set 
forth in the Beatitudes. These may belong to the Greek as well 
as to the Jew, to the bond and to the free, to the uncircumcised 
and the circumcised, to rich and poor, humble and exalte3, 
learned and unlearned alike. This fundamental truth of the 
Kingdom has been compelled, however, to wage incessant war- 
fare against the inveterate national, racial, and class prejudices 
of humanity from the beginning. The struggle of Paul with 
the Judaizers in the first century, and the conduct — honoring 
the rich and neglecting the poor — against which James inveighs 
in his Epistle, were but the first thunderous tones of a mighty 
battle which has been in progress down the centuries. Even 
to-day this concept of the Kingdom is to a great extent but 
a beautiful theory in our world, our national and our individual 
life. The battle is by no means won. The North against the 
South, the East against the West, the white man against the 
black man, the rich against the poor, labor against capital, 
knowledge despising ignorance, nation against nation, civiliza- 
tion against barbarism, Christendom versus Heathendom, amply 
attest that, while much has been accomplished, much remains 
to be accomplished. God, however, is no respecter of persons. 
The Kingdom is intended for all men, and all men are worthy 
of the Kingdom. Surely there is great need to-day of that 
sterling Christian manhood which shall protest without fear 
or favor against the tendency in Church and State which re- 
spects position rather than humanity — the tendency upon which 
every tyranny in the State and every despotism in the Church 
has reared its superstructure, and by means of which they have 
lived. 

There is, in conclusion, only one restriction upon the extent 
of the Kingdom of God: the inability or the unwillingness of 
the individual to comply with the conditions imposed for en- 
trance. Despite the intent of the Kingdom, it is not universally 
accepted. When measured by the ideal or goal, the results in- 
deed are disappointing; but when measured by the humanity 
and the civilization with which the Kingdom has had to deal, 



The Extent of the Kingdom 165 

the results are most encouraging. While men willingly admit 
that the times are "out of joint," while they acknowledge the 
marvelous harmony in which the universe of God proceeds; 
while they see that the world of nature is a sequence of laws 
well ordered and harmoniously followed; that everywhere is 
concord save in the world of man ; that the whole creation may 
be compared to a superb organ, mighty in size, perfect in con- 
struction, and exquisite in tone, but with a single key out of 
tune, which spoils the music of the whole, yet they will not 
take the proper steps to remedy the discord. The Universe, the 
world of nature, follow their appointed law: they are the 
Kingdom of God, the sphere in which His rule is obeyed. It 
is not so, however, in the world of man. Here we have — 

"a jarring and a dissonant thing 
Amid this general dance and minstrelsy." 

The remedy for this vast discord, of course, is the universal 
extension of the Kingdom — the sovereignty of God. The 
world's reception of the Kingdom alone prevents the universality 
of the celestial harmony. The refusal of Adam, however, is 
still the popular ideal. Creation is a divided realm. Will 
there ever be union? Will the extension of the Kingdom ever 
be complete, and God be the supreme and the unquestioned 
head? 

Translated into terms of individuality, the question is, Who 
will share ultimately in the Kingdom of God? Will all men 
be saved, or only some men? Will the Kingdom be entirely 
successful, or only partially so? Will God rule over all men 
ultimately by Love, or will He be compelled to rule over some 
in an eternal hell by compulsion? Questions of tragic impor- 
tance thus confront us. Can we answer any, or all of them? 

It is evident that Jesus reveals the ultimate triumph of the 
Kingdom of God. While specific evidence is not wanting, the 
whole trend of His thought and teaching is in this direction. 
St. Paul truly represents His Master in the glowing language 
of I Cor. 15:24-29, and Eph. 1 : 10. The Kingdom will tri- 
umph. But how and to what extent? are the crucial questions. 
Will mankind submit to the sovereignty of God ? If not, what 
will be the fate of the rebellious? Several theories have been 
set forth to solve this problem. Universalism, the common view 



1 66 Jesus' Idea 

of the ultimate separation of the good and the evil, and Condi- 
tional Immortality alike offer their program. The very con- 
trariety of these views however, with the facts upon which 
they are based, indicates, we think, the impossibility of arriv- 
ing at any solution of our problem which possesses certainty or 
even probability. Jesus did not answer our question, and in- 
volved in its determination are the Love of God and the Free- 
will of Man. Who can say what these may ultimately accom- 
plish? 

"So I read 
The constant action of celestial powers 

Mixed into waywardness of mortal men, 
Whereof no sage's eye can trace the course 
And see the close. 

Fruitful result, O sage ! 
Certain uncertainty." 



CHAPTER XII 

THE TIME OF THE KINGDOM 

In the popular belief of to-day, the Kingdom of God is 
regarded almost exclusively as future in time. An assertion 
of the present existence of the Kingdom on the earth would, 
indeed, provoke a smile of derision in many quarters; for the 
advent of the Kingdom is popularly identified with the end 
of the world. The present life is to give place to the future, 
or eternal life, and that will be the Kingdom of God. This 
view, however, is extremely defective, and overlooks the funda- 
mental import of Christianity. Numerous evils, also, are the 
offspring of this conception. The Christian religion is emascu- 
lated. The world that is, and the world that is to come, are 
widely separated in thought. The religious and the secular 
are divorced. Men value the future life, and despise, or mini- 
mize, the present life. We have Monasticism perverting Ca- 
tholicism, and Asceticism stifling Christianity. The social and 
the altruistic aspect of the Christian religion is sacrified to the 
individual, the egoistic aspect. The world is flooded with so- 
called Christian societies, whose origin, aim, and end is selfish- 
ness. "The Imitation of Christ" of Thomas A. Kempis, with 
its emphasis of personal and ignoring of social religion, is the 
ideal of thousands, in contradistinction to the Christianity of 
Christ. In fact, the inevitable outcome of this idea is the 
degradation of Christianity to the veritable level of an Insur- 
ance Society, which simply issues policies in favor of Heaven. 
If, however, this view of "the time" of the Kingdom is inade- 
quate, what are we to believe about this subject? To know the 
truth, we must consult the teaching of Jesus. 

A cursory glance, however, at the New Testament seems 
to reveal glaring inconsistency and contradiction in Our Lord's 
teaching. Jesus speaks, apparently, of the Kingdom now as 
present in time, and again as future. This fact, indeed, has 
given rise to several theories. It is contended by some that, 

167 



1 68 Jesus' Idea 

in His early ministry, Jesus expected the sudden and miraculous 
inauguration of the Kingdom, and that later He was made per- 
force to see that the Kingdom could come only after a long 
period of development. Others maintain that He always con- 
ceived of the Kingdom as future, and that whatever reference 
there is to it in His teaching as present is merely anticipatory. 
These explanations, however, are not convincing. That Jesus 
spoke of the time of the Kingdom in terms which seem to be 
inconsistent and contradictory is undeniable, but that His teach- 
ing is inconsistent is by no means evident. On the contrary, He 
spoke of the Kingdom as both present and future, because the 
very nature of the Kingdom demanded that He do so. This 
will become apparent as we proceed. Let us now, however, con- 
sider the testimony for the present character of the Kingdom. 

While the Jews were utterly unable to see that the King- 
dom of God, so loudly heralded by John, and by Jesus, was at 
hand, inasmuch as their conception of the Kingdom effectually 
blinded their eyes, yet the Kingdom was at hand. "The King- 
dom of God is among you," was Jesus' reply to the Pharisees, 
who asked, "when the Kingdom of God cometh?" (St. Lu. 
17:21). "The Kingdom of God is come upon you," was 
His suggestion also to the Pharisees, who accused Him of cast- 
ing out devils through Beelzebub, their prince (St. Lu. 11 : 20). 
He also speaks of the Kingdom as being taken by violence. 1 
The present character of the Kingdom is also indicated in the 
remark made upon the return of the Seventy: "I beheld Satan 
as lightning fall from heaven" (St. Lu. 10: 18). The King- 
dom, indeed, as a present fact has confronted us throughout 
our entire study. Where this is not explicitly stated, it is 
implied. It is the presupposition of the parables of Growth — 
the Sower, the Seed Growing Secretly, the Mustard Seed. The 
parable of the Leaven is meaningless unless the Kingdom is 
present, and acting like leaven. The parables of the Tares and 
the Drag-Net also represent the Kingdom's admixture of good 
and bad in this present world. The Beatitudes, again, notice- 
ably imply the present possession of the Kingdom of God. 
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of 

1 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom 
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" (St- 
Mt. 11:12; St. Lu. 16:16). 



The Time of the Kingdom 169 

heaven." Jesus also speaks of persons as now entering the 
Kingdom. Trie publicans and harlots enter before the chief 
priests and elders (St. Mt. 21:31). Men, again, are urged 
to seek the Kingdom before all things (St. Mt. 6:36), evi- 
dently implying a present quest. Woe is pronounced upon the 
Scribes and Pharisees because they "shut up the kingdom of 
heaven against men, for ye enter not in yourselves, neither 
suffer ye them that are entering to enter" (St. Mt. 23: 13). 
Mankind, again, is urged to enter into Life. "Narrow is the 
way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" 
(St. Mt. 7:13-14). 

This use of the term "life" is very interesting and sug- 
gestive. "Life," indeed, in the fulness of its capacity, is 
the comprehensive blessing of the Kingdom. In this connec- 
tion, the teaching of St. John in the Fourth Gospel about 
"eternal life" is important. "Eternal Life," in fact, is the 
Johannine equivalent for the Kingdom of God. The thought- 
ful reader of the Fourth Gospel is soon impressed by the scant 
attention given the ever-present phrase of the Synoptic Gospels 
— "The Kingdom of God," or "The Kingdom of Heaven." 
Eternal Life seems to be the engrossing theme, and to occupy 
in the mind of St. John the position which had been held by 
the Kingdom of God in the thought of the Synoptists. Upon 
reflection, however, no cause for bewilderment is found. St. 
John was ever occupied rather with the content and meaning 
of Christianity, than with the perpetuation of the form in which 
it was originally given. A little thought reveals that the King- 
dom of God and Eternal Life are equivalent: the one is the 
other. The point of view may be different, but the object 
viewed is the same. The Kingdom of God is eternal or en- 
during life; eternal life is the Kingdom of God. This is well 
illustrated in the saying: "He that doeth the will of God 
abideth forever." Hence, when St. John emphasizes "life" and 
"eternal life," he does not minimize the Kingdom of God. He 
rather views the Kingdom in the aspect of its character and 
end. "Eternal Life" is the subjective aspect of the Kingdom 
in relation to personality and eternity. Bearing this fact in 
mind, we notice throughout the Fourth Gospel that St. John 
speaks of "eternal life" as a present possession, and a present 
fact. "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (St. 



170 Jesus' Idea 

Jn. 6I47). 1 

Thus we learn from abundant sources that the Kingdom of 
God was a present fact. 2 In this respect, indeed, Jesus was in 
full accord with the popular Jewish expectation, while He 
dissents from the popular view of to-day as to the exclusively 
future character of the Kingdom. That Jesus, while opposing 
the Pharisaic view of the materialistic and political Kingdom 
of God, was not led to the opposite extreme of viewing the 
Kingdom as entirely future, "transcendental and heavenly," a 
tendency already marked in the Apocalyptic literature of His 
time, is only one of the many illustrations of the splendid bal- 
ance, the superb equipoise of the Man of Nazareth. 

The popular query to-day, however, no less than in the 
day of Our Lord, is this: Admitting that Jesus taught the 
actual existence of the Kingdom, where is it, and what is it? 
The Kingdom seems non-existent. Jesus, indeed, seemed in His 
own day to present a sorry spectacle — A King without a 
Kingdom. 

To understand where it is, let us again recall the funda- 
mental character of the Kingdom. It is inward and spiritual. 
It is primarily a Kingdom of the inner life. God's Kingdom is 
where God's will is sovereign. John and Jesus had declared 

1 This, again, suggests also an important truth : the word "eternal" 
does not relate so much to time as to character., "Eternal life" is 
not merely a life that is endless ; it is rather a life which continues, 
because it is the kind of life that deserves to continue, and must 
continue. It is a life begun on earth, and possessing the power of 
survival after death. 

2 Yet other evidence is available. Jesus speaks of the least of His 
disciples in the Kingdom as then greater than the greatest of the 
adherents of the Old Dispensation — John the Baptist. The humblest 
disciple of the Kingdom, He means, "enjoys greater privileges and 
stands upon a higher plane of revelation" (St. Mt. 11:11). The 
Sermon on the Mount is, also, descriptive throughout of the 
righteousness of the subjects of the Kingdom in this world. The 
virtues there inculcated are evidently to be realized in the ordinary 
relationships of man with man. Unexpected and incidental testi- 
mony corroborative of the present character of the Kingdom is 
also found. Certain delicate expressions, such as the Greek word 
wfioLddrj, used in the parable of the Tares, and already referred 
to, are very suggestive. This word declares, for example, that the 
Kingdom, even as Jesus was speaking, "had become like" a field 
containing tares intermingled with the wheat. 



The Time of the Kingdom 171 

repeatedly, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." And it 
was at hand; it was present; it was a fact. It was at hand, 
present, and a fact in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. By 
Him, indeed, God's will was done on earth as it is done in 
Heaven. "Not my will be done, but thine, O Lord." The 
soul, the mind, and the heart of Jesus were the Kingdom of 
God. 1 In the inner life of Jesus, there was that conscious 
harmony with God's will, which is akin to the perfect but 
unconscious harmony which exists in the world of Nature, and 
throughout the Universe. The Kingdom of God in human- 
ity, indeed, which should have been introduced in, and through, 
the person of the First Adam, was at last actual in, and through, 
the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Second Adam. Further, 
the Kingdom began to be extended when Jesus collected a band 
of disciples about Him into whose hearts a new principle of 
life was introduced — the principle of divine rule. The Second 
Adam, indeed, was begetting spiritual children to continue 
the good, as the First Adam had begotten children of the flesh 
to perpetuate the evil. The one was the founder of a hu- 
manity divorced from God; the other founded a humanity 
wedded to God. The one divided the Kingdom of God; the 
other united it. In the one and his descendants, indeed, the 
world for centuries had drifted away from God; in the other 
and His descendants the world for centuries would advance 
toward God. 

The Kingdom of God had thus with Jesus become primarily 
a Kingdom of personality. The Kingdom, indeed, had availed 
itself of the most forceful of all agencies for good — the power 
of the personal life. Jesus, henceforth, as the actual embodi- 
ment of the Kingdom in the Individual, must necessarily exert 
an ever-increasing influence over the minds and hearts of men. 
Ideas are comparatively powerless unless clothed with person- 
ality. Incarnate in a person, they become sources of undying 
influence. Well has George Eliot said: "Ideas are often poor 
ghosts; our sun-filled eyes cannot discern them; they pass 
athwart us in their vapor, and cannot make themselves felt. 
But sometimes they are made flesh; they breathe upon us with 
warm breath; they touch us with soft, responsive hands, they 

1 "The soul is the microcosm within which, in all its strength, the 
Kingdom of God is set up." 



172 Jesus' Idea 

look at us with sad, sincere eyes, and speak to us in appealing 
tones; they are clothed in a living, human soul, with all its 
conflicts, its faith and its love. Then their presence is a power, 
then they shake us like a passion, and we are drawn after 
them with gentle compulsion, as flame is drawn to flame." 
This, indeed, was the glory and the power inhering in the 
present "time" of the Kingdom. 

That Jesus desired men to believe the Kingdom present 
in His own Person may be inferred from His reply to the 
embassy sent to Him by John the Baptist, from the prison fort- 
ress of Machero. John, we remember, had been imprisoned by 
Herod for his boldness in rebuking the incestuous union between 
Herod and his brother Philip's wife. The prophet was lying 
in prison, disheartened and downcast. Doubts began to haunt 
him. On the banks of the Jordan he had testified unhesitatingly 
to the Messiahship of the Prophet of Galilee. Things, how- 
ever, have not shaped themselves as he had expected. Conse- 
quently, he sends two of his disciples to Jesus with the question : 
"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" 
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again 
those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their 
sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf 
hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel 
preached to them." The answer is not direct, but suggestive. 
John is to draw his own conclusion. As soon, however, as we 
hear Jesus' reply, our minds instinctively revert to the Inaugural 
Address delivered in the synagogue of Nazareth, and, at once, 
we perceive His meaning. Jesus had identified Himself in that 
address with the Messianic character prophecied about of old. 
Now He suggests to John that, if he will consider the signs 
of the times as they are revealed in His Person, and the work 
which He is doing, there will be no reason to doubt that the 
long-expected Messiah had come, and with Him, the Kingdom 
of God. John was laboring to some extent under the per- 
verted Messianic ideas of the day, and Jesus reminds him of 
Isaiah's picture of the Messianic King and Kingdom, suggest- 
ing that it is finding fulfilment before His very eyes, if he will 
but open them and see. 

That Jesus also spoke of the Kingdom as future in time, 
as well as present, cannot be reasonably denied. On one occa- 



The Time of the Kingdom 173 

sion, He declared that some of the bystanders would not die 
until they had seen the Kingdom of God come with power. 
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there 
be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death, 
till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power" 
( St. Mk. 9:1). He also taught that men should come from 
the East and the West to sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
in the Kingdom (St. Lu. 13:29). At the Last Supper, He 
referred to a future repast with the disciples in the King- 
dom. The passages are respectively: "And they shall come 
from the East and from the West; and from the North and 
from the South, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." 
"Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of 
the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom 
of God." We must bear in mind, however, at this point, 
that the Kingdom of God is present in time before it can be 
future. The two times of the Kingdom, indeed, bear to each 
other the relation of cause and effect, of antecedent and result. 
To interpret the Kingdom only in an eschatological, or final, 
sense, is in reality to misunderstand the very nature of the 
Kingdom. For a due appreciation of the essential nature of 
the Kingdom will reveal that "strictly speaking the future of 
the Kingdom is divided, and the notes of time are really three- 
fold, — present, near future, and more distant future." 

While present in the world, the Kingdom is always coming, 
paradoxical as it may seem. It is this fact, indeed, which 
necessitates "the near future" of the Kingdom, and predicts the 
"more distant future." The Kingdom of God is first within 
the man. Planted within the individual, it is little more in 
the beginning than an humble desire to conform to the will 
of God. Only gradually, and after labor, struggle, and years, 
does the sovereignty of God gain control of the entire mind, 
and heart, and life — yet all the while the Kingdom is present 
and acting like the leaven of the Master's illustration — "a prin- 
ciple working from within outward, for the renewal and trans- 
formation" of the individuality, affecting life in all its rela- 
tionships, even influencing the mental processes, reconstructing 
the thought. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, but not 
at once. When introduced, it affects the parts immediately 
adjacent, and ultimately the whole. Thus Our Lord's teaching 



174 Jesus' Idea 

in regard to the time of the Kingdom, contradictory and incon- 
sistent as it may appear to the superficial, is but the logical 
development of the principle enunciated in the parable of the 
Leaven. It is but the parable of the Leaven translated into 
terms of time. If the Kingdom acts like leaven, there must 
be both a near future and a more distant future for the King- 
dom of God. 

And, as it is with the Kingdom in the individual life, so 
it is in the world at large. The sovereignty of God is social 
in aspect, as well as individualistic. It is intended to "renew 
and transform every department of human existence." It seeks 
a lost society as well as a lost individual. The social organism 
is, indeed, full of darkness, because it lacks singleness of eye. 
For example, the subject of Marriage should show an ever 
closer approximation to the divine ideal because of the leaven 
of the Kingdom in the world. The true principle of Mar- 
riage and Divorce is set forth in St. Mt. 19:3-9. As this 
principle prevails, we have the near future of the Kingdom, 
and the token of the more distant future. The Kingdom, also, 
consecrates social and family life, and seeks for their con- 
formity to the Divine Ideal, as Jesus indicated by His presence, 
and first miracle which He wrought at the Wedding Feast of 
Cana in Galilee. The State itself should also reveal, and should 
reveal increasingly, the near future of the Kingdom. 1 

1 "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the 
things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." 
(St. Mt. 21 :2i). This utterance, indeed, sheds a brilliant light upon 
the comprehensiveness of the Kingdom. The Pharisees taught that 
the Jews, as the Chosen People, should be ruled by God alone, or by 
His immediate Vicegerent. Hence the payment of the annual poll- 
tax to Rome was exceedingly obnoxious. They consult Jesus as to 
the legitimacy of the tax, expecting that He, as a loyal Jew, would 
declare against its lawfulness. Such a reply would make the 
Emperor His foe, and probably cause His deliverance to the 
Governor, which the Herodians desired on political grounds, and 
the Pharisees for religious reasons. Jesus' answer, however, by 
means of the coin, was confounding. Apparently evasive, it met 
successfully all aspects of their question. The significance of the 
reply is this : Political service need not and should not conflict with 
religious service. The State and the Church, while not identical, 
are not essentially antagonistic. Both have their sphere, and both 
should be the Kingdom of God. 

The perfect service of God, indeed, involves the rendition of full 



The Time of the Kingdom 175 

It is true that Jesus said almost nothing specifically about 
the effect of the Kingdom's principles upon what are usually 
denominated secular affairs. There is no reference in His 
teaching to the Kingdom's influence uopn Art or Education, 
Literature or Culture, Philosophy or Economics, Politics or 
Commerce. We must remember, however, that Jesus did not 
suffer from the prevalent fallacy of dividing life into two com- 
partments, one of which is labeled "sacred" and the other 
"secular." The Jew, in fact, knew no sacred and no secular: 
all was sacred. Life was religious in its every phase. In 
Jesus' thought, then, the Kingdom was to dominate life in its 
entirety. He simply emphasized the fundamental principles of 
the Kingdom, and trusted to their inherent power to permeate 
and impregnate the whole, regenerating all things. 

The Christian centuries, indeed, have witnessed ever more 
and more the gradual harmonization of almost every depart- 
ment of human activity with the will of God. The Kingdom, 
religious in essence, has always and everywhere overstepped 
the bounds of what men call the "religious," and has invaded 
the so-called "secular" sphere, seeking to reclaim it for God. 
The aim has not been to make the world and life "religious" in 
the common and emasculated sense of the word, but to have 
the principles of God reign everywhere. The former has 
indeed been the result whenever the identification of the King- 
service to the State. The Pharisees sought to serve God religiously ; 
the Herodian was content to serve Him politically. Each thought 
their whole duty fulfilled, whereas, each had failed in half their 
duty. The coin evidenced the authoritative government of Rome: 
under it, and because of it, the Pharisees enjoyed whatever blessings 
they had, hence they owed certain duties to it. "Render unto Caesar 
the things that are Caesar's." The Herodians, however, while 
rendering unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's, had forgotten 
God who alone rendered Caesar's government stable and authori- 
tative. The duty to the State, and the duty to God, were, however, 
complementary and not antagonistic; equally incumbent upon all 
men, and both are necessary to the perfection of either. Men are 
ever forgetful, however, that the Moral Law was written upon Two 
Tables of Stone : the one, dealing with man's duty to God ; the 
other, with his duty to his fellow-man. The Church, unfortunately, 
like the Pharisees of old, has always been chiefly concerned with 
duty to God, and neglectful of the equally important duty to man. 
In consequence, thousands to-day are more concerned with the 
service of man than with the service to God. 



176 Jesus' Idea 

dom with the visible Church has prevailed. Then the attempt is 
made to subordinate every department of life to the Church. 
The State must bow before the Church; thrones and nations 
acknowledge the sovereignty of the Mistress of the World. 
Science must be the hand-maid of theology. Everywhere there 
is curtailing, restricting, dwarfing. Life is limited instead of 
had more abundantly. Consequently, there is constant rebellion 
and struggle. A false ideal controls many, but is utterly unable 
to conquer completely human nature, and human instinct. 
Where it is successful, we have a society, sexless, impotent, 
miserable. 

On the other hand, the veritable Kingdom of God seeks 
not to be Master but servant, although it becomes sovereign 
through service. It seeks to assist the State; to enrich life by 
developing it, by calling out every inherent power in accord- 
ance with the highest principles of its own existence. The effort 
everywhere is to free, not to enslave. The one factor, indeed, 
works from within to enlarge; the other from without, to sup- 
press. The one is instinct with youth and vigor; the other 
bears the marks of decrepitude and death. The one lives in 
the past; the other always hails the future. 

What a depth of meaning there is in the oft-used words 
of the Lord's Prayer: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done 
on earth as it is done in heaven" now becomes apparent. The 
coming of the sovereignty of God, indeed, means infinitely more 
than the extension of the Christian Church or the transition 
from a terrestrial to a celestial sphere; it means the bringing 
of man's manifold relationships and activities under the control 
of God. 

Thus we find that Jesus' idea of the coming of the King- 
dom is immeasurably larger and more inspiring than is gener- 
ally admitted. He would, indeed, transfigure the whole of 
life. 

Usually, this coming of the Kingdom is very slow. At other 
times, the long-continued, silent, and unobserved leavening 
process precipitates a sudden and apparently unheralded ad- 
vance. Such an advance, the last century witnessed in the 
freeing of the American slaves, and the emancipation of the 
Russian serfs ; more recently in the revolutions which are bring- 
ing political liberty to the Latin races and even to Asiatic 



The Time of the Kingdom 177 

peoples. 

This "near future" of the Kingdom, as we have interpreted 
it, is referred to by Our Lord in St. Mark 9:1: "Verily I say 
unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which 
shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God 
come with power." In fact, many of the passages which are 
usually interpreted as referring to the Final Coming of the 
Kingdom, really refer to its spiritual and continuous coming. 
The writer is persuaded that such passages as St. Mt. 10:23, 
St. Mt. 16:27-28, St. Lu. 17:22-36, St. Mt. 24:29-51, St. 
Mt. 26 : 63-64, and their counterparts in the other Gospels, 
bear this significance. Unfortunately the limits of this work 
do not permit proof of the fact. However, let us now remem- 
ber that, in Jesus' view, the Kingdom was to be ushered to 
advancing stages by marked steps, which could be compared 
to the coming of the Son of Man in majesty (St. Mt. 16: 28), 
or to the Kingdom of God coming with power. These "com- 
ings," however, are always regarded as imperfect and incom- 
plete. The thought implied is "that the Kingdom is not fully 
come till everything in human life and in the relations of man 
in society is brought into complete harmony with the will of 
God." A full and complete coming of the Kingdom is there- 
fore posited. 

The Kingdom of God, indeed, will not be a mere continu- 
ous evolution. Having had a beginning, and having a present 
development, it will have a consummation : the more remote 
future of the Kingdom. Christianity is, in this respect, closely 
allied to all the great religions of the world, and to the great 
philosophic and scientific systems of human thought. All have 
some doctrine of an end. Of course, in using the word "end," 
we do not mean an absolute end or termination of all things — 
but the entrance upon the celestial stage, when the end of things 
as they are constituted at present shall be at hand. The human 
mind, the constitution of the physical earth, the very nature of 
the Universe itself, no less than past history, and all human 
experience, demand and predicate an end. Hence Christianity 
has its teleological aspect. 

Our study would lead us to expect this. The language 
of the parable which illustrates the development of the King- 
dom by the growth of a seed is significant: "first the blade, then 



178 Jesus' Idea 

the ear, then the full corn in the ear" Here, indeed, are "the 
times" of the Kingdom — present, near future, remote future. 
The remote future of the Kingdom is also distinctly empha- 
sized in the words: "But when the fruit is brought forth, 
immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is 
come" (St. Mk. 4: 29). The luxuriant growth of the Mustard 
seed, and the thoroughness of the leaven in its work, may be 
said, also, without unduly emphasizing the details of a parable, 
to predicate the consummation of the Kingdom. The parables 
of the Tares and the Drag-Net clearly demonstrate the same 
truth, and may contribute certain features of the event. The 
most convincing proof of the final coming of the Kingdom, how- 
ever, is to be derived from the entire trend of Jesus' teaching 
in regard to the Kingdom of God. As the Old Testament 
demanded the New Testament as its complement and apology, 
so the Kingdom of God, as revealed by Jesus, demanded through 
its present character, a more complete and glorious final mani- 
festation. Without this, the Kingdom is unintelligible and a 
mockery. It is especially noticeable, also, that the Fourth 
Gospel, which is the most insistent of all the Gospels upon 
the spiritual and progressive coming of the Kingdom, is not 
without unreserved testimony to a final consummation of the 
Kingdom, and an adjudication of all things. 

Our data for determining the details of this "coming," 
however, are few and unsatisfactory. This "time" of the King- 
dom will mark the transference of the stage of action from 
earth to heaven, yet the character of this stage is entirely beyond 
our ken. Men endeavor to ascertain the conditions of this era, 
only to fail. Their attempts are sometimes interesting, often 
inane, and not infrequently ludicrous. Here, where certainty 
is less justifiable than elsewhere, we often find a dogmatism at 
once irreverent and unseemly. Time is projected into eternity. 
The after-world is constructed upon the basis of the present 
world. Heaven is a much magnified earth. Golden streets, 
pearly gates, and a catholicity of musical ability are integral 
factors of the conception. Of course this is pardonable, if it 
remains in the realm of the figurative and the approximate. 
When accepted literally, it becomes puerile and utterly in- 
adequate. 

On the very threshold of our speculation, indeed, Jesus con- 



The Time of the Kingdom 179 

fronts us with an indication of its absolute futility. Let us note 
the incident. The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the 
dead. Laughing at what they termed Pharisaic credulity, they 
came to Jesus with an inquiry, framed to show the absurdity of 
the Pharisaic belief. The Mosaic law required that, when a 
married man died without leaving children, his brother should 
marry his widow and raise up children to him. The case pro- 
pounded to Jesus was this : A woman had been married to seven 
brothers in obedience to the Mosaic requirement; to whom 
would she belong in the resurrection of the dead? The suppo- 
sition of the Sadducees was the prevalent supposition of to-day, 
that virtually the same conditions must prevail in heaven that 
prevail on earth. The reply of Jesus is very important. He 
declares that His questioners do not understand the Scriptures, 
which they profess to believe, for they unmistakably imply im- 
mortality, neither do they know the power of God. "Do ye 
not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither 
the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, 
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as 
the angels which are in heaven" (St. Mk. 12: 18-27). 

This language is explicit. In the future of the Kingdom 
of God there is no marriage. Now the married state is funda- 
mental in this world. We cannot conceive of a worthy state 
or condition of humanity in which husband and wife, parents 
and children, and homes are not essential factors. Jesus, how- 
ever, with very few words, informs us that in the final stage of 
the Kingdom this condition will not exist, and cites the power 
of God as the indication of the Divine ability to fashion an- 
other environment for man, which will illustrate another prin- 
ciple of social life entirely. If, then, the final stage of the 
Kingdom will not be organized on this fundamental principle 
of our present existence, is it not foolhardy to attempt to con- 
ceive of other characteristics of the future Kingdom? "We now 
see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face." 
We must admit that we do not, and that we cannot know 
the conditions which will prevail, because we do not know 
the power or the resources of God. The words of St. Paul 
express our ignorance and our knowledge alike: "Eye hath 
not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart 
of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love 



180 Jesus' Idea 

him" (I. Cor. 2:9). Thus, while ignorant of the details, we 
have every reason to believe in the final coming of the King- 
dom after a long period of time, when Jesus who "being the 
Holiest among the mighty, and the mightiest among the holy, 
has lifted with His pierced hand empires off their hinges, has 
turned the stream of centuries out of its channel, and still 
governs the ages," shall return as "the glorious Leader and 
King of Mankind, the triumphant Founder and Perfecter of 
the Kingdom of a redeemed humanity." The dead will rise, 
and the day for Judgment be at hand. This, indeed, is clearly 
pointed out by the Synoptists, and by St. John. The Synop- 
tists, however, dwell rather upon the final Resurrection, while 
St. John, who by no means ignores this event, dwells upon 
the resurrection as a moral and ethical fact, possible in this 
life, the prelude to, and the cause of the final Resurrection 
to Eternal Life. "And shall come forth; they that have done 
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done 
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (St. Jn. 5:29). 

We are thus limited to the baldest and barest of facts. We 
may enter the realm of fantastic speculation, indulging in either 
the wildest or the most sober of theories, and exercising to the 
Heart's content the most fascinating arts of rhetoric, yet all 
is profitless. This, indeed, men love to do, rather than to adhere 
to the substantial facts which are revealed, translating them 
into terms of their life. The important thing, however, to 
remember is, that the present and the future of the Kingdom 
are related to each other as cause and effect. There is "first 
the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear." Hence 
those who would ultimately enter the Kingdom must pass 
through these successive stages. There must be this orderly 
progress. The individual must have the Kingdom present in 
his life, before he can be present in the future of the Kingdom 
in any satisfactory sense. This, indeed, is sufficient for man- 
kind to know. Jesus simply brought life and immortality to 
light; the details of the eternal life are, and will remain, obscure. 



CHAPTER XIII 

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM 

The world to-day hears a great deal of what the church has 
to say about Jesus. Equally important, however — if not more 
important, in view of present conditions — is it for the world 
to hear what Jesus has to say about the church. 

Only on two distinct occasions, however, did Our Lord 
make explicit mention of His church. The references are St. 
Matthew 16:18 and 18:17. Some scholars, notably Wendt, dis- 
pute the authenticity of these sayings of Jesus, inasmuch as there 
are only two references to the church in Our Lord's entire teach- 
ings, as we have them recorded in the Gospels, and both of these 
are found only in St. Matthew. While this paucity of reference 
is remarkable, yet the utterances in question are so eminently 
characteristic of the Christ, and so natural, logical and essential 
in view of the circumstances which called them into being, that 
we are compelled to disagree with that criticism which would 
invalidate them, and to acknowledge them genuine and worthy 
of most studious interpretation. 

Before proceeding to their detailed interpretation, however, 
it may be pertinent to ask: What idea does the word "church" 
convey to us? A little reflection will reveal that the word is 
used commonly in one of three senses: the universal, the de- 
nominational, or the local. We speak, for instance, of the 
"universal church," meaning the Christian Church throughout 
the world, independent of any particular nationality, age, or 
clime. Again, we speak of the Episcopal, the Methodist, or the 
Presbyterian church, narrowing the term to apply to some spe- 
cific body of Christians or denomination. Yet again, we speak 
of the church in some locality or town, thus more completely 
limiting the application of the word. Underneath this diversi- 
fied usage, however, there is, in the popular mind, a substantial 
unity of conception or idea. It is the idea of organization. 
Using the word "church," we understand it as signifying an 

181 



1 82 Jesus' Idea 

organized, duly constituted body, with its own officers, institu- 
tions, laws, and clearly defined beliefs. The character or kind 
of organization doubtless depends upon the point of view of 
the person using the term ; upon the ecclesiastical spectacles worn 
by the speaker, and through which he views the distant past. 
The Roman Catholic, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the 
Methodist, and the Congregationalist alike are apt to project 
into the earliest use of the word "church" the character or type 
of ecclesiastical organization with which they are most familiar, 
and of which they are devotees to-day. Hence even the author- 
ity of Jesus is sometimes claimed for each of these varying forms 
of organization. This method of procedure is, of course, un- 
worthy of rational support. It is also a more or less flagrant 
reversal of history. The law of organization is much the same 
as the law of life. Institutions grow ; they are evolved and de- 
veloped. They are not born full-grown, mature in form and 
character. To attribute either the broad outlines or the detailed 
minutiae of ecclesiastical organization to Jesus is, in our opinion 
at least, to belittle the wisdom of the Son of Man in view of the 
universality of His religion, and to demand His descent to a par- 
ticularity with which He was apparently but slightly concerned, 
if concerned at all. Jesus, indeed, stands committed to no 
ecclesiastical program. The popular interpretation of the 
word "church," however, renders it imperative that we study 
the meaning of the word used and so translated in the pages 
of the New Testament. The term is the Greek eKKXr/cria, 
whence are derived "ecclesiastic" and "ecclesiastical." x 

At the outset we are compelled to say that the meaning of 
this word is not what is first suggested by the English word 
"church." The word of the Evangelist meant not so much 
organization, official and stereotyped, as an assemblage, a con- 
gregation, a community or brotherhood. This is the funda- 
mental idea when we study the historic Hebrew connotation of 
the term. The thought is plastic, pliable, more social than 
institutional; it is an ideal to be made real, rather than an ac- 
tual to be made ideal. Primarily, the term speaks of social and 
religious union. At first everything is in a more or less chaotic 
or disordered state — at least, an unorganized state. The refer- 
ence of rf ecclesia/ J indeed, is to the time before there have arisen 

1 See Appendix F., "The Meaning of Ecclesia." 



The Church and the Kingdom 183 

the inevitable results of any permanent association of mn — duly 
constituted laws, officials, creeds, a thoroughly organized system ; 
or, in other words, an institutional regime. This will and must 
ensue. But we must be careful not to confound the later 
growth with the incipient stage; we must not project the late 
into the early. In our views of the Church of Jesus, let us 
abandon the mechanical for the vital. 1 

In order that we may see this as the meaning of Jesus the 
more clearly, let us turn to the recorded instances of Our Lord's 
use of the equivalent of this word. Toward the close of His 
life, and, therefore, late in His public ministry, Jesus and the 
Apostles were at Cesarea-Philippi. The scene and occasion are 
memorable. Already the bitter hostility of the Jews against 
Jesus, and their absolute rejection of Him are in evidence. Fur- 
thermore, they are standing in the very presence of the august 
symbol of the Roman power in the splendid temple at Cesarea. 
Jesus asks of His disciples: "Who do men say that I, the Son 
of man, am?" The apostles answer: "Some say that thou art 
John the Baptist; some Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of 
the prophets." This reply reveals but one opinion — the people 
do not understand Him to be the Messiah. Conscious of this, 
Jesus addresses to them a like inquiry: "But who say ye that 
I am?" That moment was one of dramatic intensity. For long 
He has sought to lead them to the truth. Have His efforts 
failed? Now is the moment to see. Think of the suspense! 
But the Master has not long to wait. Peter, the impetuous 

x The succinct yet pregnant statement of Dr. Hort is worthy of 
our attention: "The word 'Church' carries with it associations 
derived from the institutions and doctrines of later times, and this 
cannot, at present, without a constant mental effort, be made to 
convey the full and exact force which originally belonged to 
'ecclesia.' " 

Further, it is interesting to notice that in the early English trans- 
lations of the New Testament "ecclesia" was translated "congre- 
gation" and not "church." For instance, in the famous Bishop's 
Bible, St. Matt. 16:18 reads, not "Upon this rock I will build my 
church," but "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." It is 
only with the appearance of our Authorized Version in 161 1 that 
the translation "church" wholly supplanted the more correct render- 
ing of "ecclesia." Such facts as these bring forcibly before us. 
the thought and idea of Jesus. He was to have a congregation, 
an assembly, a community, or brotherhood of men. This was the 
great conception. 



184 Jesus' Idea 

and active leader and spokesman of the apostolic band, imme- 
diately replies: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
God." Jesus has not failed. Success is His. Here is one at 
least who understands. Rome may shine in her splendor, the 
Jewish nation spurn the Galilean peasant, the people think of 
Him only as a prophet; but Peter, at least, is convinced that 
He is the Messiah and none else. 1 

And now is the moment to declare the effect or consequence 
of this voluntary confession. "I say unto thee that thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 'ecclesiaf and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There was, in other 
words, to be a new Israel, in which Peter should be first; a 
community or brotherhood of men, with Peter as the corner- 
stone, against which the very gates of hell, the emblem of in- 
vincibility to the Ancient World, should not prevail. 2 

This is the first explicit intimation which we have of the 
Church. The words break suddenly from the Master's lips. 
They seem, however, to presage a line of thought long enter- 
tained, and to voice an intention determined upon in silence, 
but now, at the opportune moment, publicly proclaimed. The 
"ecclesia" indeed, was no new idea, no sudden fancy, but rather 
a mature conviction. The Christian Church, in fact, is no mere 
mechanical creation; it is a vital thing. The church is neces- 
sitated by the very nature of Christianity. Had Jesus enter- 
tained no thought of founding a church, and had He taken 
no steps to found one, the church would have resulted neces- 
sarily, Christianity being what it is in both life and truth. 
Truth tends to association and organization; life, to expression 
and embodiment. 3 



*It is an assured conviction, too — calm, mature; so mature as to 
be able to bear the strain of the Messiah's suffering and death — 
an idea abhorrent to the Jewish mind, but advocated openly by 
Jesus for the first time on this occasion. Of their own will have 
they come to their conclusion ; there has been no coercion, no 
persuasion. Heaven has opened their eyes, and they have seen. 

2 See Appendix G., "The Primacy of Peter." 

3 This is natural law. The psychologist's maxim, "All mental 
states are followed by activity of some sort," finds illustration here. 
The church, then, would have resulted had Jesus taken no active 
steps consciously to utilize this law. But Jesus, here as elsewhere, 
puts Himself into line, if we may so speak, with the laws of 



The Church and the Kingdom 185 

Any great idea indeed, or thought born into the world of men 
attracts to itself kindred spirits, and usually becomes an organiz- 
ing force. History is replete with such movements. It is in- 
evitable, therefore, apart from any direct action of the Master, 
that such great ideas as those of Jesus of Nazareth should be- 
come an organizing principle in the life of the world. How 
naturally too would this be brought about when the fundamental 
thoughts of Our Lord were the fatherhood of God and the 
brotherhood of man. That this truth was present to the master- 
intellect of Jesus we fully believe, and to it we attribute that 
characteristic optimism which impelled Him to form only the 
nucleus of a society in the persons of the Twelve ; and, to quote 
the words of England's foremost New Testament scholar, Dr. 
Sanday, "After the manner of the divine operations in nature, 
he was rather content to plant a germ with indefinite capacities 
of growth, than thought it necessary to fix in advance the details 
of organization." x 

nature, and consciously cooperates with them, or, better, makes 
them serve His ends. 

1 Exhaustive study of the life of Jesus has revealed the falsity 
of the claim that He established a form of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, and Historical Criticism and Research are ever revealing 
more fully that the form or forms which subsequently arose were a 
gradual growth, and in their origin and development shaped by 
actual needs and largely borrowed from forms of Organization al- 
ready current in both the Jewish and the Gentile worlds until, in the 
process of time, the whole approximated closely to the Imperial 
form of Organization with the Pope or Caesar at its head. Well- 
nigh every form of ecclesiastical organization with which the modern 
world is familiar had its counterpart in some stage of this develop- 
ment, uniformity being not an initial but a culminating characteristic. 
The much-vaunted "Historic Episcopate" represents only a "half- 
way house," a half-way stage in the development, and is found in 
the beginning only in some places. Hence, while it may prove of 
service in the organic reunion of the Christian Church (if such unity 
is desirable, and we think the matter open to grave question, since 
greater evils are likely to ensue from such unity than those which 
now prevail from the divisions of Christendom, for the memories 
of the World of one Church are certainly neither pleasant, inspiring 
nor alluring), it is at once deprived of all authority as coming 
from a command of Christ or as representing a "development" 
under the direction of the Holy Spirit since, as we have just said, 
that early development issued both logically and actually in the 
Papacy. The truth is that neither the intermediate stages nor the 



1 86 Jesus' Idea 

Jesus, indeed, at Cesarea-Philippi had a vision, superb and 
glorious, of a great nation or brotherhood of men, a family of 
God in which the all-important thing should be the sovereignty 
of the law of love. 

That He had been consistently working toward this end, 
however, from the beginning is evident. The organizing power 
of His idea, in fact, began to manifest itself when the first two 
disciples — Andrew and John — believed on Him by the Jordan 
and, turning from the Baptist, followed Him. A little later, 
Jesus manifested this social power of His ideal when, by the 
Sea of Galilee, He summoned four fishermen to leave all and 
follow Him. (St. Mt. 4:18-22; St. Mk. 1:16-19; cf. St. Lu. 
5:7-11). Here, and also in the call of Levi (St. Mt. 9:9; 
St. Mk. 2:14; St. Lu. 5:27-29), a significant step was taken in 
the formation of the brotherhood of men. A more distinctive 
and far more significant step was soon taken in the call of the 
Twelve Apostles. 1 

The selection of the Twelve indeed occurred at a critical 
moment. Rejected by the authorities, and largely by the people 
of Judea, Jesus had sought the less conventional atmosphere of 
Galilee. There, however, the inveterate enmity of His foes pur- 
sued Him. The Pharisees, with the Herodians, had organized 
for His overthrow; the answer of Jesus was the call of the 
Twelve. His enemies have advanced a step ; He too will advance 
a step. As they seek the ruin of His cause, He seeks to insure 
its success. "Yes, him they may destroy, but in his room there 
shall be Twelve; and from the Twelve how many more!" 

final form of this early development are essentially permanent or 
binding; they are simply accidents of Christianity's development, 
and the super-abounding life of Christianity may at any time 
develop new or better forms ; the new wine may demand new 
bottles or new channels of expression. 

1 St. Lu. 6:12-13 says: "And it came to pass in those days, that he 
went out into a mountain to pray and continued all night in prayer 
to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples, 
and of them he chose twelve, whom, also, he named Apostles" (cf. 
St. Mt. 10; St Lu. 3:14-19). Nowhere, however, were their duties 
formally defined ; they simply occupied an intimate personal rela- 
tionship with Jesus, as companions and ambassadors. We use the 
word "ambassador" advisedly. The Apostle is not merely one who 
is sent with a message, but one who is also a personal and an ac- 
credited representative. 



The Church and the Kingdom 187 

There had been Twelve Tribes in God's Ancient Kingdom of 
Israel; these had constituted the ancient kahal, or congregation. 
So Jesus now selected Twelve Apostles. As from the twelve 
sons of Jacob, the nation had descended which was at once the 
embodiment of the Kingdom, and its agency of extension, so 
from these Twelve spiritual Sons of Jesus, was to descend the 
nation or brotherhood which should be the fuller expression of 
the Kingdom, and its means for perfect consummation. "And 
he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he 
might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal 
sickness, and to cast out devils" (St. Mk. 3:14, 15). 1 

Turning now to the second and last mention of the church 

1 In the light of this call, we appreciate an utterance of Jesus 
recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, although in a different 
context. At the Last Supper, the Master is represented by St. Luke 
as saying : "And I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father hath 
appointed unto me: That ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel" 
(22:29, 30). St. Matthew 19: 28 quotes this passage after the inter- 
view with the rich young man, and St. Peter's question as to what 
the disciples were to have for following Jesus. There twelve thrones 
are mentioned; while in St. Luke we have simply "thrones," owing 
to the defection of Judas. The Apostles' position, however, would 
be a temporary one. (I. Cor. 15:28.) The meaning of the Master 
is this : In view of the Apostles' labors, and the perils through 
which they had remained constant, Jesus ordained for them a 
sovereignty, as the Father had ordained dominion for Him. They 
were selected for unique distinction : to sit at the very table of the 
Sovereign of the Kingdom in the Messianic Banqueting Hall, and 
to occupy thrones as judges of the Twelve Tribes of Israel — the 
Ancient Israel perhaps, and the new Spiritual Israel of which they 
would be the progenitors. Recruited from the middle class of 
Jewish society, the Apostles certainly did not seem destined for 
such regal honors. They possessed, however, moral fitness and 
spiritual aptitude. Hence, Jesus kept them with himself for some 
six months, instructing them in the bonds of closest intimacy, and 
subsequently sending them two by two upon a mission to the lost 
sheep of Israel, that He might reclaim Israel if possible, and at the 
same time test the strength and adaptability of His ambassadors. 
Thus, while proclaiming the truths of the Kingdom everywhere, 
Jesus was especially busied with the training of the Twelve, whom 
He regarded as the first-fruits of the brotherhood which He was 
hopeful of establishing, and the reapers in a rich harvest which 
was to be garnered. Realizing this, we can understand the great 
significance of St. Peter's confession at Cesarea Philippi. 



1 88 Jesus' Idea 

in the Gospels (St. Mt. 18:17$.), we see the aspect of brother- 
hood more clearly revealed. This utterance presupposes the 
earlier utterance. Christianity is nothing if it is not practical. 
When a wrong is committed against us by a Christian brother 
or sister, Jesus tells us that offended dignity must yield to ardent 
desire for reconciliation. The spiritual condition of the offender 
must prompt us to the rescue. "Go and tell him his fault 
between thee and him alone." Seek a private interview and 
understanding. "If he will hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
brother;" yes, gained him anew for the brotherhood of man. 
"But if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may 
be established." Following the Old Testament precedent of 
witnesses, the principle of arbitration is to be utilized. Arbi- 
trators, disinterested, whose eyes are not blinded by passion or 
self-interest, who can bring moral influence to bear in effecting 
a settlement, and who can testify to what has occurred, must 
be sought. But should the offender remain obdurate, as the last 
resort, "tell it unto the church," the kiacKriffia, the last court of 
appeal. It is contended by some — we think unjustifiably — 
that eKKkrjcria here is the Jewish eKKXrjaLa, but surely, if this be 
true, the principle involved is no less applicable to the Chris- 
tian kKKkriaia or community of believers in Jesus. Should the 
brother not hearken to the advice and exhortation of the church, 
"let him be for thee" — i. e., in thy estimation — "as a heathen 
and a publican." In other words he is self-excommunicated. 
There is to be, and there can be, no brotherly intercourse with 
him, for he will not act the part of a brother. The church is 
also informed that its decisions will be ratified in heaven. And 
to render the exercise of this tremendous power credible and 
reasonable, Jesus promises to the supplicating church — pleading 
for the renewal of brotherhood — divine illumination, so that 
the decisions of the congregation may accord with the mind 
of God. The ideas of the e/c/cX^cta are here most clearly 
brought out by the Master; they are fellowship with God and 
the brotherhood of man. The sin against the church is the 
sin against love — love for the brethren. 

If the method of Christ was followed consistently and scru- 
pulously, what a vast step toward the peace of the world would 
be taken! Exercised in Christian parishes and congregations^ 



The Church and the Kingdom 189 

and everywhere among Christian people, it might offend some; 
and others might snap their fingers in the face of all attempts 
at reconciliation, seeking refuge in some other parish, or de- 
nomination, to be welcomed by some ignoble, perhaps rejoic- 
ing, clergyman or minister. Thus the effort would often be 
rendered abortive. But should all religious bodies, parishes, and 
congregations rise to the height of the Master's teaching, such 
unseemly conduct would be impossible, and general Christian 
sentiment would compel to godly union and concord. Might 
not the so-called Church of Jesus stress this teaching of the 
Master, with profit both to itself and to the world, instead 
of much of the stuff upon which to-day it places heavy em- 
phasis ? 

That this is the ideal of Jesus, no one can doubt; but, alas! 
it is far from realization. The church of Jesus Christ is to-day 
weakest in that which should be its most salient characteristic — 
heartfelt, unadulterated brotherhood. Of theoretical brother- 
hood, perhaps of latent brotherhood, we have enough; but of 
actual, energizing brotherhood we have far too little. Within 
the church itself class and social distinctions — wealth, culture, 
education, and intelligence, and many other things — enter to 
mar the sense of brotherhood. Consequently innumerable in- 
dividuals and the masses drift away from the church. 1 

The spirit of brotherhood, however, is an essential of the 
church of Jesus. Orthodoxy of creed and orthodoxy of ministry 
are well, but orthodoxy of spirit is better. In interpreting 
eKKXrjcTLa primarily of ministry or creed we commit an egregious 
blunder. This splendid word of the Gospel turns the thought 

1 The severest indictment ever received by the Christian church is 
the existence and the immense popularity of the many fraternal 
organizations. Conviviality and selfishness are neither the source 
nor the mainstay of these; indeed, theii presence is a mighty 
protest against existing conditions, the eloquent witness of the 
innate craving of the human heart for brotherhood, the confession 
that it cannot be found in the church of Jesus Christ, and the 
abundant indication that men have set out to find it for themselves. 
Did the church of Jesus even measurably attain its ideal, their 
raison d'etre would cease to exist. And, sad to relate, one of the 
chief forces militating against the sense of brotherhood arises from 
the church's failure to appreciate the essential meaning of iKKXtjcrla- 
Essential means something that is necessary to the constitution or 
existence of a thing. 



19° Jesus' Idea 

away from the institutional and speaks of the social, the moral, 
the ethical ; of a brotherhood, not primarily of an organization. 
He who best fulfils the terms of human brotherhood belongs 
to the true church of Christ. "He that doeth the will of my 
Father which is in heaven ; the same is my mother and sister and 
brother." To do the will is to belong to the family of God: 
the church is the family of God. 

That Jesus intended His brotherhood to become, if possible, 
coextensive with humanity, is seen in the words addressed to 
the Apostles upon the mountain in Galilee: "Go ye therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, 
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (St. 
Mt. 28:19-20). Again we meet with a dream of universal 
empire. The vision of a Kingdom gained along Satanic lines, 
however, is here replaced by a vision of a Kingdom gained along 
God-appointed lines. "Go" bespeaks aggression. Beginning 
from Jerusalem, they were to go unto the ends of the earth, 
wooing and winning humanity. That which they possessed 
could overcome all social, national and racial barriers. And 
going, they were to disciple all nations. Man's ideas were to 
give way before God's ideas. Further, they were to baptize 
the nations of the earth in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The sense of this formula is 
primarily that of a declaration of allegiance. 

Among the Hebrews, as we have found, the name expressed 
the character or nature of the person named. For example, "the 
name of Jehovah is used as a succinct expression for the re- 
vealed character of God, for all that is known of him." Again, 
to have the name called over something, involved the idea of 
ownership and protection. It did not mean "that the person 
or object referred to will bear the name of that person whose 
name is called over it"; it means that it will come under his 
authority, pass into his possession. 1 

Hence Jesus' expression here bears the Old Testament sig- 

1 II Sam. 12 :28 may be cited in illustration of this. Joab is anxious 
for David to take the city, "lest I take the city, and it be called after 
my name," i. e., be regarded as having passed under Joab's 
authority. 



The Church and the Kingdom 191 

nificance, and should be interpreted in that sense. Thus to bap- 
tize the nations into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost means to bring them into direct allegiance 
to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to all for which those 
names stand. The nations, in other words, pass under the sov- 
ereignty of these personalities. When we realize, even meas- 
urably, what these names represent, we begin, in some degree, 
to fathom the depth of Jesus' intention here. He sees with pro- 
phetic vision the nations of the earth acknowledging the sov- 
ereignty of the Triune God — become the Kingdom of God — 
and representing in every phase of their activity the principles 
for which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost live. There is an 
intensive power in this formula, as great as the extensive power 
involved in the word "Go. JJ The visible church, however, has 
always been fonder of emphasizing the extensive property of 
the Kingdom, than its intensive property. It loves always to 
follow the line of least resistance. 1 Yet these two properties 
of the Kingdom should go hand in hand. It is useless, indeed, 
for the church to "go," unless in going, there is a genuine bap- 
tism into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, instead 
of into a veneer of ecclesiasticism, which often makes the bap- 
tized, like the Pharisaic proselyte of old, twofold more the 
child of Hell than he was before. What men call Holy Baptism 
to-day is, indeed, often worse than nothing. The Trinity, into 
which Jesus would have humanity baptized, was not outward 
and metaphysical, but ethical and inward. He dwelt upon its 
manward, not its Godward aspects. This was the important 
aspect for the world. His mind was not troubled with the re- 
lationship of the Three Persons to the One God, or to one 
another, but with the relationship of the Three Persons, and 
each Person to every individual, and to the life of the world. 
Baptism was not so much into water or into a mere name, as 
into a new life of aspiration and of power, of forgiveness and of 
peace. 2 

1 The writer has known, for instance, of a Diocese of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, which was famous for its foreign mis- 
sionary interest and contributions,, yet which in itself represented 
the very acme of Pharisaic exclusivism, social arrogance and hau- 
teur. 

2 As a matter of fact, in the New Testament, there is no mention 
of any one being baptized in the name of the Trinity. The 



1 92 Jesus' Idea 

Thirdly, the Apostles were to teach all nations to observe 
the commandments of Christ. Going, discipling, instructing , 
was the threefold obligation imposed upon them. They were 
to be primarily preachers and teachers. Jesus sounded no note 
of officialdom or of organization whatever. 1 Whatever the 
Apostles did in the way of organization was due solely to the 
exigencies of the situations that confronted them, and to the 
vantage which their peculiar relationship to the Master gave 
them. 

Complying with the obligation imposed, Jesus promises that 
He will be with them alway, even unto the end of the world. 
"Always" really means "all the days" "Days of strength and 
of weakness, days of success and of failure, of joy and of sor- 
row, of youth and of age, days of life and days of death — all 
the days." Obeying His command, indeed, they were to feel the 
divine benediction of His presence. No product of the ec- 
clesiastical imagination is more illy conceived and unsupported 
by fact than that which regards this promise as made to a 

expressions used are: "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38); 
"in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts. 8:16; 19:5) ; "in the name 
of the Lord" (Acts 10:48), cf. Jam. 2:7; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 
I. Cor. 1:12; 6:11). Several explanations of this usage are offered. 
(1) Baptism in the name of one Person of the Trinity is really in 
the name of the Trinity. (2) When "in the name of Jesus" or 
kindred expressions are used, it is not necessary to understand 
them as formulas, but simply as an indication that the persons 
were baptized into allegiance to Jesus, hence the Trinitarian 
formula may have been used. (3) The shorter and simpler form 
was the earlier and the original. The Trinitarian formula repre- 
sents a later development. The latter, in fact, is not met with after 
St. Mt. 28:19 until it is found in the writings of Justin Martyr 
(Apol. 1 :6i), and in these it is not identical with the Gospel formula. 
(4) In the age of the Apostles there was no fixed formula. 

It is quite possible that Christ did not emphasize a formula at 
all. Ideas with him were more valuable than words. The Apostles, 
perhaps, saw this, hence their freedom in using other terms. Jesus 
probably uttered the words of this Trinitarian formula, as He did 
those of the Lord's prayer : as a model and a standard ; to suggest, 
not to stereotype. By adhesion to the letter, the spirit of both 
prayer and formula have been largely lost. Yet the form is only 
valuable as a conserver of the idea. Eternal vigilance, however, is 
the price of freedom from the curse of formalism. 

1 St. Paul even seems to place but slight emphasis upon the duty 
of an Apostle to baptize. 



The Church and the Kingdom 193 

specific ecclesiastical regime, orthodox in faith, and regular in 
ministry. This seems to be the idea often met with among 
Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Roman and Greek Catholics; 
among those who boast of being Historic churches and of pos- 
sessing Historic Ministries. "Historicity" may be a very good 
thing, but certainly it is worthless in this respect. This theory, 
in fact, attains the acme of materialism. The promise of Jesus 
is not thus restricted, nor is it absolute. The principle enun- 
ciated is universal and eternal, and conditional. The condition 
of Christ's presence is compliance with His command. Those 
who go, truly baptize, and teach mankind — be they priest or 
minister, layman or clergyman, man or woman, Catholic or 
Protestant — are assured of the constant presence of their Lord. 
The only sane Apostolic Succession, indeed, is along the line 
of altruistic endeavor. To interpret it otherwise is blind ego- 
tism, and little short of blasphemy. Most Apostolic is he who 
most Apostolic does. The ample evidence for this truth is the 
patent divine blessing which has rested, and now rests upon the 
Apostolic labors of the Denominational Churches, and the non- 
Episcopal Ministries. The Apostolic Succession of Jesus, in- 
deed, includes Mackaye of Uganda, the Baptist Judson, and the 
Presbyterian Chalmers, no less than the proud occupants of an 
"Historic Episcopate," and it includes the latter only as they 
"go" truly baptize , and truly teach. 

In order that this brotherhood might have permanent ex- 
pression, a permanent bond of union, and also a means of fellow- 
ship with Himself, Jesus instituted "The Lord's Supper." On 
the eve of the Crucifixion, when reclining at the evening meal, 
in the quiet of the upper chamber in Jerusalem, Jesus enacted 
the supreme parable of His life. Here His parabolic genius 
attains its highest manifestation. Following the example of the 
Hebrew prophets, who frequently illustrated and rendered im- 
pressive some salient truth by means of dramatic actions, the 
Lord "took the two simplest and most universal representa- 
tions of sustaining food, bread that strengtheneth man's heart, 
and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and employed 
them as the universal representatives of spiritual food, of His 
body broken, and His blood poured out." His action is pre- 
cisely what we would expect from our knowledge of Him, and 
of His idea. What could be more fitting than that He embody 



194 Jesus' Idea 

the salient purpose and idea for which He stood in some signal 
act as a permanent memorial of His aim, now that He was 
going away? What more typical of His peculiar genius? 
According to St. Mark's account, "As they did eat, Jesus took 
bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, 
Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when 
he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of 
it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testa- 
ment, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will 
drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I 
drink it new in the kingdom of God" (St. Mk. i4:22-25). 1 
Whatever else this action of Jesus involved, it involved at 
least the idea of union and of brotherhood. It is well said that 
"food has ever been the token of unity — the bond of equal inter- 
course." "Refusal to take food together is the symbol of ex- 
clusiveness and caste distinction." The Jew could not eat 
with the Gentile, we know, yet Jesus makes a common meal the 
permanent symbol of the union of His followers without regard 
to sex, condition or race. 2 This fact is tremendously significant : 
the very presupposition of the Lord's Supper, indeed, is the sense 
of brotherhood. Yet to-day the rite so redolent of brother- 
hood is the symbol largely of division and of strife. The re- 
quirement of brotherhood, in fact, is often ignored for some 

1 Four accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper are found 
in the New Testament: St. Mt. 26:26-29; St. Mk. 14:22-25; St. Luke 
22:17-20; I. Cor. 11:24ft*. The accounts in St. Matthew and St. 
Mark are virtually the same; while those of St. Luke and St. Paul 
present minor differences. It is singular that neither St. Matthew 
nor St. Mark record the words : "Do this in remembrance of me," 
which are recorded by St. Luke and by St. Paul. The earliest 
account, however, is that given in I. Cor. 11 :24, which represents 
these words as spoken by Jesus. However this may be, it is certain 
that the occasion and the significance of the Lord's action at the 
Last Supper would more and more commend itself to the growing 
insight of the Apostles, as worthy of a permanent memorial. This 
will appear as we proceed. 

It is probable that the "blessing" given by Christ was akin to 
those used at their meals by the Jews. Thus at the present day the 
following blessing is said over the bread: "Blessed art thou, O 
Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth bread from 
the earth," and before drinking wine : "JSlessed art thou , , , who 
createst the fruit of the vine." 

2 "Drink ye all." "They all drank.'* 



The Church and the Kingdom 195 

requirement of a fancied faith. 

This thought, however, does not exhaust the significance of 
the rite. While there is a strict unity of conception underlying 
the act of Jesus, many subordinate and diverse elements are 
included. About a year before the institution of the Lord's 
Supper, Jesus had engaged in a very remarkable conversation 
with the Jews at Capernaum, which cost Him the allegiance of 
several of His disciples. 1 The meaning of His enigmatical lan- 
guage on this occasion, if hidden from the Jews, was at least pat- 
ent to spiritual insight. The idea was that Jesus was the life of 

1 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread 
from Heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
Heaven. . . .. Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that 
cometh to me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth on me 
shall never thirst." The Jews did not understand; they "murmured 
at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from 
heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose 
father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came 
down from heaven." Jesus, however, undismayed, asserted with 
greater positiveness, "I am that bread of life ; your fathers did eat 
manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which 
cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not 
die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if 
any man eat of this bread he shall live forever: and the bread 
that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
world." The antagonism of the Jews became more pronounced : 
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus, however, 
replied, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living 
Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth 
me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down 
from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: 
he that eateth of this bread shall live forever." In consequence 
of this teaching, "many of his disciples went back, and walketh 
no more with him." Jesus, however, retracted nothing; He only 
added the significant remark : "It is the spirit that quickeneth ; 
the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they 
are spirit, and they are life" (St. John 6:32 ff). St. Peter and 
the Twelve, however, even if they did not understand, remained 
faithful ; the former, indeed, seized the opportunity to attest again 
his faith in Jesus as the Messiah: "Thou art that Christ, the Son 
of the living God." 



t<)6 Jesus' Idea 

the soul ; that He was to the spiritual life of man exactly what 
bread — the staff of life — was to the physical life: its nourish- 
ment; that only by "feeding upon Him, could man truly live." 
"I am your nourishment," when translated into figurative speech, 
became, "my flesh is your bread, my blood your drink." Renan 
may well remark: "Jesus was, at once, very idealistic in his con- 
ceptions, and very materialistic in his expression of them." 
So, at the Last Supper, when great thoughts must have agitated 
His mind, and great affections stirred His heart, Jesus person- 
ally present and before the very eyes of the disciples, took bread, 
and showing it to them, said, "this is my body" ; showing also 
the wine, "this is my blood," — action and language alike signi- 
fying, "I am your life." His whole desire, indeed, was that 
He might be their life; that they might feed upon Him, might 
drink Him. Wisdom, in Prov. 9:5, is represented as saying, 
"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have 
mingled." So Jesus represents Himself as giving Himself to 
be eaten and drunk. As Wisdom desires to be "spiritually ap- 
propriated and assimilated," so Jesus desires that He — His 
thoughts. His dims. His spirit — may become part and parcel, 
nay, the very essence of the individual life. If the Lord's Supper 
was enacted without the use of the words, "Do this in remem- 
brance of me," it was then simply the enunciation symbolically 
of the universal principle underlying the conversation with the 
Jews in Capernaum. If, however, as we believe, the Supper 
was to be a perpetual memorial, Jesus pleads that in the per- 
formance of the rite there may be a spiritual assimilation of 
Himself in His ideas, His aspirations and His spirit; that the 
participants may no longer live, but that He may live in them. 1 
Jesus, however, desired something further: a feeding upon 
His body as broken, and a drinking of His blood as "shed" 
or "poured out" In the Last Supper He advanced a step 
further than in the teaching given at Capernaum. "Flesh" and 

^he failure of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to have so much 
of the "mind of Christ," to mention the institution of Baptism, or 
of the Lord's Supper, while it especially emphasizes in the third 
chapter the reality for which baptism stands — a new birth by 
water and by Spirit — and in the sixth chapter, the reality which 
the Lord's Supper represents — a feeding upon the body and blood of 
Christ, is very remarkable, and may indicate at least that the 
realities are of more importance than the symbols. 



The Church and the Kingdom 197 

"blood" have now become "a body broken'' and "blood shed." 
The change is subtle, yet essential, and most suggestive. The 
idea of His life as sacrifice — a living death — Jesus indeed brings 
vividly before His disciples at the Last Supper under the figure 
of a "body broken" and "blood shed," with the added thought 
that His disciples are to feed upon that life. They are to eat 
and drink not merely His body and blood — that is His life — 
but His life as it is represented by a broken body and shed blood, 
i. e., by service and by sacrifice. How splendid His idea was 
now becomes apparent. The conception was ethical, practical, 
vital. His life of sacrifice and service w T as to become the essence 
of their life; was to be bodied forth in their lives as they repre- 
sented Him. 1 

Jesus' thought, however, goes even a step further. Content 
with suggesting that the bread be interpreted simply as His 
body, the cup of wine, representing His shed blood, is made to 
signify a "covenant," or a "new covenant." "For this is my 
blood of the New Testament (covenant) which is shed for many 
for the remission of sins" (St. Mt. 26:28). 2 In explanation of 
this allusion, our minds instinctively revert to the blood-shedding 
which inaugurated the Covenant or alliance, described in Ex. 
24I4-8. 3 Our Lord, indeed, means that just as Moses sprinkled 
blood alike on altar and people, sealed an alliance between Israel 
and Jehovah, so did His blood shed for men, i. e., His life of sac- 
rifice, obedient to God even unto the death of the Cross, seal a 
new alliance between God and man. This alliance, the cup of 

1 See Appendix H., "The Significance of the Sufferings and Death 
of Jesus." 

2 "The blood of a covenant was not life-blood flowing in the veins 
of the living, but life-blood shed in sacrificial death." 

3 "And Moses wrote all the _ words of the Lord, and rose up 
early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and 
twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he 
sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt 
offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. 
And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins ; and 
half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar, and he took the book 
of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people : and they 
said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and 
said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made 
with you concerning all these words." 



198 Jesus' Idea 

wine, representing the shed blood of Christ, signified. Of this 
cup, i. e., this new alliance, Jesus would have His followers 
drink; entering fully into all the privileges and the obligations 
of the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had sung so nobly: 
"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" 
(31 131) ; and in which the law of God should be written upon 
the heart, the knowledge of God abound, and mankind exult in 
the forgiveness of their sins (vs. 33, 34). Thus we gain a 
glimpse of the august idea of Jesus as He instituted the Lord's 
Supper. 1 

Returning now to first principles, we find that eKKXrjeta, as 
used in the Gospels, is comprehensive enough to include the his- 
toric churches of Christendom, the Protestant communions, and 
that large number of men and women, who, unaffiliated with 
either Catholicism or Protestantism, manifest, "practical recog- 
nition of the 'Lordship of Jesus' in their lives." The word 
is large enough to take in those who are frequently outside 
the church; to render valid the ministries now deemed invalid 
or irregular; to break down many figments of the ecclesiastical 
imagination now sundering man; and to include all who ac- 
knowledge the Messianic Lordship of Jesus in one noble and 
triumphant whole. What could do more to advance the spirit 
of brotherhood among men than the free and full recognition 
of this fact ? The church, however, which was to be the mighty 
embodiment and exponent of the brotherhood of man, has been, 
and is to-day, the scene of the keenest violation of that sense, 
and largely, as we believe, because the fundamental meaning 
of kKKXrjata was neither understood nor borne in mind. "If 
the salt shall have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?" 
The unity of the early church was due to the vivid conscious- 

1 That the rite was one of extreme solemnity, and destined for 
the weal or woe of the participants, St. Paul indicates in the sober 
words : "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the 
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh 
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- 
cerning the Lord's body" (I Cor. 11:27-29). Realizing the 
significance of the rite, we can see the utter mockery in unworthy 
participation. 



The Church and the Kingdom 199 

ness of brotherhood; and if church unity is ever to come in the 
future, it will come, and come only, through a deepening con- 
viction of the undeniable brotherhood of all who are seeking 
to possess the mind, the spirit, and the life of Jesus — brother- 
hood which outweighs all differences. He labors best for church 
unity who seeks to deepen the sense of Christian brotherhood; 
not he who advocates impracticable schemes which will prove 
but iridescent dreams. 

The history of Christianity has been largely the history of 
misplaced emphasis; but happily the day of ecclesiasticism is 
passing, and the day of vital Christianity is dawning. Prior 
to the Reformation we have the era of triumphant ecclesiasti- 
cism. Since the Reformation the age of credal statement has 
held well-nigh sovereign sway; but signs are not wanting that 
our own time is witnessing an ever-increasing return to Christi- 
anity in its simplicity, its pristine power and beauty. To under- 
stand the large and generous meaning of e/c/cX^o-ia as it is used 
in the Gospel of Matthew, is a step in that direction. It means 
the dissipation of prejudice; the acceptance of the true instead of 
the false; the placing of emphasis upon the unifying bond of 
brotherhood ; the dethronement of invidious distinctions ; the ab- 
sence of all taint of insulting condescension. Above all, it will 
banish from the world forever that most unjustifiable and ob- 
noxious of world-wide and omni-denominational phenomena, the 
prolific source of religious animosity, the inveterate opponent of 
brotherhood — the ecclesiastic. We mean the man who is the 
incarnation of provincialism; who forgets that he was a man 
before he was a clergyman ; who, as a clergyman, takes but little 
interest in, and has but little to do with, the larger affairs of 
life — political, educational, social, temporal — remaining but a 
cipher in his community, so far as these are concerned; the 
victim of that most fallacious of heresies, the divorcing of the 
sacred and the secular. We mean the man who also forgets 
that he was a minister of Christ, pledged to His undying service, 
and to profound sympathy with every movement for God and 
righteousness, from the Church of Rome, with her noble Bene- 
dict XV, all along the line, to the Salvation Army; pledged 
to these by Baptism long before he assumed the ministerial yoke 
of his respective denomination. We mean the man who loves 
his sect more than his fellow-man, more than the universal 



200 Jesus' Idea 

priesthood of all Christians ; whose eyes are blind to the distinct 
excellencies and achievements of other religious bodies; the man 
of little weight, narrow vision, circumscribed sympathy; the 
bane of the Church, and often met with. Such a man, indeed, 
reverses the order of nature, and of chronology; he is the viola- 
tion of their laws. Adequate appreciation of the essential mean- 
ing of eKKkqaia would rid the world of him, and in his stead 
would give a band of strong, large-visioned, spiritually minded 
men, who would remember that they were first men ; that noth- 
ing of concern to man was foreign to them ; that, secondly, they 
were ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and, last, but not 
least, they were clergymen of their respective denominations, and 
that this relationship only accentuates, intensifies, and conse- 
crates the former obligations. Such men will the e/acX^o-i'a of 
Jesus give us; and it means the passing forever of that hapless 
and hopeless mediocrity which now so often, by virtue of its 
very mediocrity, basks in the sunshine of ecclesiastical favor and 
preferment, and the elevation of that substantial worth and 
avowed ability which often pine and wither, unnoticed and un- 
appreciated. 

Led by men of this type, the Church would assume the 
relationship toward the Kingdom which Jesus intended it to 
assume. The Kingdom is the far-larger category. 1 The sub- 
lime conception, indeed, is that of Isaiah: "The government 
shall be upon his (Messiah's) shoulder; ... of the in- 
crease of his government there shall be no end" (9:6-7). The 
Church is simply the witness to this purpose, and the chief 
instrumentality to this end. The Church, indeed, is not an end 
in itself, but a means; it is destined to be as temporary as the 
Jewish eKKXrjaia was. Both, in fact, derive their importance 
from their relationship to the Kingdom of God, and the effi- 
ciency of both is to be tested solely as they minister to that end. 
The visible Church is not in itself divine; it is the spiritual 
life of which the Church is but one manifestation that is divine. 
The life is far more than its embodiment, and can assume vary- 
ing forms. The malady of the Church to-day is precisely the 
malady which afflicted the Jewish Church ages ago : these truths 
are forgotten. Much of our religion, indeed, is Judaism under 

1 The term "kingdom" occurs one hundred and twelve times in 
the Gospels; the word "church" only twice. 



The Church and the Kingdom 201 

the veil of Christianity, and there is the need to-day of a race 
of prophets to keep the Church true to her allegiance, though 
their task were as thankless and as futile as that of the Ancient 
Prophets of Israel. 

From the standpoint of the Kingdom, indeed, one must look 
with much commiseration upon the Church, both of the past 
and of the present. Truly it is a "tragic, humiliating, dis- 
enchanting tale." In the words of the late Professor Bruce, 
"To be enthusiastic about the Church in its present condition 
is impossible, to hope for its future is not impossible; but if 
it were, there is no cause for despair. Christ will ever remain, 
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the kingdom of 
God will remain, a kingdom that cannot be moved" ("The King- 
dom of God" p. 272). Indeed, the Church of Jesus, which was 
to lead the world away from the temporal and the material, 
has itself become painfully engrossed in that from which it was 
to deliver. Civilization is nominally Christian, but not prac- 
tically so. Men detect the falsity of the Church's faith and 
practise, and, when not angered, are profoundly saddened. In 
fact, the Church is largely a miserable travesty, a lamentable 
failure; it is too often a club of self-satisfied egotists, or to 
express the truth variously, the mausoleum of effete respect- 
ability, the hopeless tomb of ardent aspiration and spiritual in- 
sight, and the very incarnation of those principles which cruci- 
fied the Jesus whom it professes to worship. "A prophet is 
not without honor save in his own country," is emphatically true 
of the Church. Instead of being a school of the prophets, it 
is usually their sepulcher. To such an extent is this the case 
that many feel that if they would be Christian, they must 
remain apart from the visible Church. 1 

1 If these strictures upon the Christian Church be deemed severe, 
the writer can only say that an experience and observation of some 
twenty odd years has convinced him of their substantial justice. 
If Christ, His spirit and aims, are the soul and essence of Chris- 
tianity, then the World's greatest need to-day is a Society for the 
conversion of Bishops and Clergy. We have organizations for all 
things save the one thing needful. Not that the writer would cast 
any aspersion upon the characters of these men, but he would chal- 
lenge the legitimacy of their conceptions and methods. He is often 
impelled to ask, Where is Jesus in the miserable mess? In the 
hearts of many humble worshipers. Yes ! but the closer you get 
to Organized Christianity, the so-called Church of Jesus, the less 



202 Jesus' Idea 

In conclusion, let us say that the Reformation, with its 
convulsive throes, was an effort of the divine life in man to 
free itself from an intolerable ecclesiastical thraldom. In some 
respects, however, it was the birth of a new thraldom ; an intel- 
lectual slavery being substituted for an ecclesiastical slavery. 
To-day, the noble work of the Reformation must be completed. 
The Church of Jesus must be organized on the principle of the 
Kingdom of God. Ridding itself of its Pharisaism, which 
throughout the ages has tithed the mint, anise, and cummin 
of ministry, belief, and lesser things, while neglecting the weigh- 
tier matter of the Law — the Kingdom of God, the Church must 
awaken to the mind of Jesus. The Church must have a vision 
of the Master's purpose, must catch a glimpse of the bleeding 
heart of humanity. The Kingdom of God must become the 
salvation of the Church. Breaking the fetters of ecclesiasticism, 
intellectualism, and traditionalism, the Church must be free. 
Men must learn that when they think and act in the terms and 
in the spirit of ecclesiasticism, they are neither thinking nor 
acting in the terms or in the spirit of Christianity; that the 
true Church of Jesus cannot be identified with any nor with all 
ecclesiastical organizations; that it can only be identified with 
those in every ecclesiastical organization, who, possessing the 
mind and the spirit of Jesus, are striving to bring about the 
sovereignty of God, and that the "Church" can only be identi- 
fied with the Kingdom of God when it is interpreted in this 
sense. When our Divinity Schools shall be instinct with the 
idea and with the spirit of the Kingdom, rather than with de- 
nominational shibboleths; when Sunday-School instruction is 
based upon the idea of the Kingdom, then will the Church go 
forth to conquer, a clearer ethical note will be sounded, and 

of Jesus you find. Verily, to be ecclesiastically minded is death. 
It may be said with much truthfulness that the three chief foes 
of the Kingdom of God are human sin, human ignorance, and 
ecclesiasticism; and really the foes might be narrowed to two, for 
ecclesiasticism is but a department of human ignorance — ignorance 
of the Spirit, the Aim and Purpose of Jesus; an ignorance which 
has furnished the Church-conditions which now largely prevail. The 
blind have led the blind and, as usual, leader and led have fallen 
into the ditch. The day calls preeminently for the intellectual 
emancipation of the ministry primarily, then the emancipation and 
the salvation of the Church may follow. 



The Church and the Kingdom 203 

a more Christian life lived. 1 

*A portion of this Chapter appeared in an article entitled, "The 
Essential Meaning of 'Ekklesia," which was published in The 
Biblical World for March, 1905. It now appears here through the 
courtesy of the Editors of that Journal. 



CHAPTER XIV 



THE KINGDOM AND THE SUPERNATURAL 

The reader of the Gospels is soon aware that he dwells in 
the midst of the Miraculous. Jesus is constantly represented 
as possessing miraculous power, and indeed, according to the 
Gospel story, He manifested no surprise at his ability to perform 
miracles. That which appears extraordinary to us, appeared 
to him seemly and natural. The suspicion with which the 
modern man approaches this subject was utterly foreign to 
Him; for Jesus, the supernatural was, in fact, the natural. 
While attempts have been made to strip the Gospel of its super- 
natural element, they have never met with entire success; 1 yet 
the suspicion lingers in many minds that the supernatural ele- 
ment in the Gospel is not really credible in view of the scientific 
knowledge of the present era, and where this element is readily 
accepted, there is often little understanding of its relationship 
to Jesus' idea. The writer believes in the credibility of the 
miraculous and that it bore close and intimate relationship to 
Jesus' idea. Before we proceed, however, to see how this could 
be, let us inquire what we mean by the word "miracle." 

If we accept the etymological meaning, "the original idea 
in the word 'wonder' (Latin, 'miraculum,' English, 'mir- 
acle') seems to have been that of turning aside through a feeling 

x The words of the author of "Ecce Homo" are interesting in 
this connection : "Miracles play so important a part in Christ's 
scheme that any theory which would represent them as due entirely 
to the imagination of His followers or of a later age, destroys the 
credibility of the documents, not partially but wholly, and leaves 
Christ a person as mythical as Hercules" (p. 51). Speaking of 
the Gospel History, Harnack says : "Much that was formerly re- 
jected has been reestablished on a close investigation, and in the 
light of comprehensive experience. Who in these days, for exam- 
ple, could make such short work of the miraculous cures in the 
Gospels as was the custom of scholars formerly?". ("Christianity 
and History," p. 63.) 

204 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 205 

of fear or awe (see Skeat's Etymological Dictionary). The 
savage, 'ignorant of the very rudiments of science, and trying 
to get at the meaning of life by what the senses seem to tell' 
(to quote Tylor, 'Anthropology,' p. 343) would often turn aside 
when he came face to face with something new, unexpected, or 
extraordinary." Even to-day the popular idea is that a miracle 
is an event which contravenes the laws of nature and causes 
wonder and astonishment. This interpretation, however, will 
not satisfy the requirement of the New Testament. There a 
miracle is much more than a wonder. The Greek word, teras, 
wonder or portent, is used always in conjunction with another 
word — semeion — a sign. Now a sign is always an indication of 
something; the distinct element of purpose is introduced. This 
is emphatically true of the New Testament conception of mir- 
acles. Bearing this in mind, "a miracle, then, may be described 
as an event manifesting purpose, occurring in the physical world, 
which cannot be accounted for by any of its known forces, and 
which, therefore, we ascribe to a spiritual cause. It is an inter- 
ference with the ordinary action of the forces of nature on the 
part of the Author of Nature — an event brought about, not 
by any observed combination of physical forces, but by a direct 
Divine volition." 

Now in view of Jesus' idea of God and Nature, these events 
and interferences^ which are such stumbling-blocks to the modern 
consciousness, were eminently rational and sane. "Nature" did 
not mean to Him what it often means to the mind of to-day. 
It has been pointed out that this word is used commonly in three 
senses. In the Scientific sense, nature usually signifies the sum- 
total of physical phenomena. It includes the mineral, the vege- 
table, and the animal kingdom; it is the material universe, the 
realm of physical law. Speaking generally, the second sense of 
the word may be called the Moral sense. Nature, then, includes 
not merely the physical but the moral realm. Man is dealt with 
as a moral agent, as well as an animal; nature embraces not 
only physical but moral phenomena. The third sense is the 
Religious sense. Nature stands for a totality, the sum of all 
things — the Universe and God. And in this sense, the relation 
of God to the Universe is not that of a God who, after the 
Deistic idea, having made all things, sits far-removed — an ab- 
sentee God, who simply lets things go — pursuing "an eternal pol- 



206 Jesus 7 Idea 

icy of non-intervention." Nor is the relation that of a God 
who, after the Pantheistic idea, is so intimately associated with 
his creation that he practically finds full and exhaustive ex- 
pression in it — the creator being swallowed up in the creation. 
The Scylla of Deism — a cold, absentee, transcendent overlord 
— is not to be escaped by running into the Charybdis of Panthe- 
ism — a practical Atheism, with its impotent, impoverished, yet 
present Deity. Creation is rather the realm of a God, who is 
superior to it, yet immanent in it; it is the sphere of his present 
activity. 1 In this view, nature includes not only the natural, 
but the supernatural as well. The supernatural, in fact, is lost 
in the natural, for Nature includes God. 

This interpretation of "Nature" undoubtedly voices the 
idea of Jesus. He believed in a "God, the Father Almighty, 
Maker of Heaven and Earth," whose presence was all-pervad- 
ing. 2 And not only was God present everywhere, but every- 
where was He manifesting beneficent activity. Nature was the 
sphere of a present interest. "For of Him, and through Him, 
and to Him, are all things" (Rom. 11:36). The Man, 
indeed, whose love of nature finds expression in so much of His 
teaching in respect to both form and content, who loved the 
freshness of the open country, the beauty of the borders of 
the lake, and the stillness and solemnity of the mountain side, 
could not look but with impassioned interest upon the natural 
world. It spoke to His soul of the mystical and the eternal. 
"Nature was to Him the living garment in which the Eternal 
had robed His mysterious loveliness." Jesus, indeed, raised 
no disquieting questions. The abstract and philosophical rea- 
soning of the ancient Greek and of the modern thinker about 
"Nature" was essentially foreign to the Hebrew. He saw 
God everywhere; God's Hand was in everything. "The Lord 

x The Divine Immanence is, indeed, becoming more and more 
apparent with the progress of the scientific investigation of natural 
phenomena. 

2 The words of the Psalmist represent Jesus' thought: "Whither 
shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy 
presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my 
bed in hell (hades), behold, thou art there. If I take the wings 
of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even 
there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me" 
(139:7-10). 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 207 

also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice 
hailstones and coals of fire" (Ps. 18:13). "Fire, and hail 
snow and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word" (Ps. 118 
8). Thought, indeed, with the Hebrew had found its true 
center. 1 Hence the supernatural was in a very real sense the 
natural, and what seems to us miraculous was,, under certain 
circumstances, a matter of course. (See Appendix I., "The 
Possibility, the Probability, and the Credibility of Miracles.") 
Passing now to the miracles themselves, we find that Jesus 
is represented as able to perform these works, whenever He 
willed to do so, and upon objects of a diversified character. 
Both Man and Nature were the subjects of His extraordinary 
power. Further, the tone of His miracles was always a lofty 
one. Upon man, Jesus constantly worked miracles of healing. 
A particularly interesting feature of these cures is that they 
are represented as deliverance from possession by demons (St. 
Mk. 1:21; 5:1; St. Mt. 9:32, 33; St. Mk. 7:25; St. Mt. 17: 
15; 12:22; St. Lu. 13:16). The symptoms manifested by the 
sick and afflicted persons, however, are those of various diseases 
now well known to medical science. 2 The writers of the New 
Testament, however, were eminently the children of their age, 
sharing in its light and in its darkness. They fully believed 
that demons entered into men, and caused various bodily ail- 
ments. This belief, indeed, they shared with the human race 
in the early stages of its history; a belief which has always 
added to humanity's weight of woe many imaginary terrors 
born of this idea. 3 What Jesus' degree of knowledge about 

1 "As a matter of fact, the word 'nature' does not once occur in 
the Old Testament. It was not until Hebraism came into contact 
with Hellenism that the idea of 'nature' was introduced into Hebrew 
thought" (Art. "Nature." Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3. p. 495). 

3 Sometimes the "spirit" is described as possessing the very char- 
acter of the disease: "a dumb spirit" (St. Mk. 9:17); "a spirit of 
infirmity" (St. Lu. 13:11); "An unclean spirit" (St. Mt. 12: 
43-45; St. Lu. 11:24-26). In St. Luke 4:38, 39, Jesus Himself per- 
sonified the disease — "fever" — which was troubling Peter's mother- 
in-law : "he stood over her, and rebuked the fever." 

3 Among the Greeks, the idea of demons causing a wasting sick- 
ness, insanity, and epilepsy is found. In the New Testament, how- 
ever, demons are not regarded as the authors of all sickness or 
disease (St. Mt. 10:8; St. Mk. 1 :32s St. Lu. 6:17, 18). The diseases 
represented there as superinduced by demons are chiefly of a 
nervous order. The belief in demons was, in reality, "a survival of 



20 8 Jesus' Idea 

this subject was, is an interesting question. We may hold 
either that Jesus' knowledge of this and similar subjects was 
simply that of His time; or that He was omniscient, but that 
in such matters He accommodated Himself to the thought of 
His day; or that we really have no means of determining the 
extent of His knowledge. One thing, however, is evident: 
If Jesus desired to come into touch with His time He must 
have adopted the language and the "thought- forms" of His 
age. If He was the possessor of a superior medical knowledge, 
it is most unlikely that He would have disturbed the minds of 
the people by any attempt to enlighten them. Whether en- 
lightened or unenlightened, He must have used the popularly 
accepted conceptions as the media of His revelation of spiritual 
truth. 1 

That the remarkable personality of Jesus was efficacious, 

primitive Hebrew beliefs, which were quickened by contact with 
Babylonia, Persia, and Greece." The tendency to this belief may be 
thus explained : "Early mankind instinctively sought for causes, and 
interpreted the forces and other manifestations of nature as per- 
sonal, i. e., as emanating from beings analogous to himself. Thus 
primitive man dwelt in a cosmic society of superhuman agencies, 
some of which ministered to his well-being, and others to his injury. 
At the dawn of human consciousness man found himself con- 
fronted by forces which he was unable to control, and which 
exercised a baleful or destructive influence. Hurricane, lightning, 
sunstroke, plague, flood and earthquake were ascribed to wrathful 
personal agencies whose malignity man would endeavor to avert or 
appease." Jewish demonology was greatly enriched by contact with 
surrounding neighbors — Babylonia for instance. This statement is 
interesting: "The doctrine of disease among the ancient Babylonians 
was that the swarming demons could enter a man's body (through 
food and drink, for instance), and cause sickness. On a fragment 
of a tablet, Budge has found six evil spirits mentioned by name. 
The first attacked the head; the second, the lips; the third, the 
forehead ; the fourth, the breast ; the fifth, the viscera ; the sixth, the 
hand" (See Articles, "Demons," in Hasting's Bible Dictionary, and 
Encyclopaedia Biblica). 

1 Jesus was compelled to do what any missionary to a heathen land 
to-day is compelled to do : taking the mass of confronting super- 
stition, he must use whatever he can from it as the vehicle of his 
nobler vision, rather than seek to overturn the superstitions at 
once, arousing animosity, and probably defeating the very end which 
he had in view. Judging from the New Testament passages, 
Jesus seems to have used the idea of demonology stripped, how- 
ever, of its grosser features. 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 209 

to some extent, in the cure of these mental and bodily maladies, 
is to be admitted. Dr. Sanday aptly remarks: "Given a per- 
sonality like that of Jesus, the effect which it would have upon 
disorders of this character (nervous) would be strictly analo- 
gous to that which modern medicine would seek to produce. 
The peculiar combination of commanding authority with ex- 
treme gentleness and sympathy would be a healing force of 
which the value could not easily be exaggerated." That others, 
indeed, were able to effect similar cures is evident from Jesus' 
own words. "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do 
your children cast them out?" (St. Mt. 12:27). Again, "John 
answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils 
in thy name, and he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid 
him not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my 
name, that can lightly speak evil of me" (St. Mk. 9:38, 39, cf. 
St. Mt. 7:32). Yet it is to be doubted if this power alone 
will explain all of Jesus' miracles of healing. 1 

Jesus, however, wrought miracles upon Nature as well as 
upon Man. The Walking upon the Sea (St. Mt. 14:25), the 
Stilling of the Winds and Waves (St. Mt. 8:26), the Wither- 
ing of the Barren Fig Tree (St. Mt. 21:18), the Feeding of 
the Four Thousand (St. Mt. 15:32), and the Five Thou- 
sand (St. Mt. 14:19), and the Changing of Water into Wine 
(St. Jn. 2:1), alike testify to the exercise of an extraordinary 
power over natural forces. The one class of miracles, indeed, 
is as well established as the other; the evidence for the two 
types of miracles being found in all the Gospels. That such 
signal events should cause wonder, and arouse inquiry as to their 
meaning is to be expected. What was their significance? Of 
what were they "signs"? In what way, indeed, were they re- 
lated to Jesus' idea — "the Kingdom of God"? 

That they were credentials to induce men to believe in 
Christ is apparent on the face of the New Testament. This 
intent we may even gather from the words of the Master Him- 
self. "But I have greater witness than that of John : for 

1 The cures which may be explained by the influence of mind 
over body are probably found in St. Mt. 8:28; 15:21; 17:14; 12:10; 
12:22; 9:32; St. Mk. 1:23; St. Lu. 13:11; St. Jn. 5:9. Offering- 
insurmountable obstacles to this explanation are the works recorded 
in St. Mk. 7:32; 8:22; St. Mt. 9:27; 20:30; 8:14; 9:20; 8:2; 9:23; 
St. Lu. 14:2; 17:11; 22:50; 7:11; St. Jn. 9:1; 11:43. 



210 Jesus 1 Idea 

the works which the Father has given me to finish, the same 
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent 
me" (St. Jn. 5:36). Again in healing the sick of the palsy, 
Jesus said : "But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath 
power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy), 
I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy 
way into thy house" (St. Mk. 2 no). 1 Too great stress, 
however, can easily be placed upon this aspect of miracles. It 
must be remembered that miracles, as credentials, can not be 
separated from the teaching of Jesus and from the Person of 
the Teacher. The three together are the credentials of Christ. 

Indeed, in regarding miracles as credentials of the Christ, we 
must not dwell upon their aspect as "wonders" alone. Regard 
must be had to their character also. Jesus was exceedingly 
careful in this respect, as we see from the Temptation in- 
cident, especially in the Second Temptation, when He refused 
to exercise His supernatural power except in a way befitting 
its aim and motive. In the credential, there must be more than 
a display of supernatural power ; there must be convincing char- 
acter in the wonder wrought. This leads us to an examina- 
tion of the inner character of Christ's miracles. What did they 
portend as "signs"? 

The Miracles of Jesus were at once witnesses to the reality 
of His Kingship, and to the nature of His Kingdom, or sov- 
ereignty. They were as suggestive and as educational as His 
parables: in fact, they were parables in action. They revealed 
the innermost character of God — Love — and they disclosed the 
tenor of His sovereignty with regard to both physical and 
spiritual maladies. Dr. Drummond says in his book, "Apostolic 
Teaching and Christ's Teaching," p. 116, "The diseases cured 
were recognized types of spiritual evil. Deafness and blind- 
ness were the figures of fatal indifference to spiritual truth. 

1 Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are condemned for their 
infidelity in the face of His mighty works. _ "Woe unto thee, 
Chorazin, woe unto thee, Bethsaida, for if the mighty works, which 
were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would 
have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. . . . And thou 
Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down 
to hell : for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had 
been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (St 
Mt. 11:21, 23; cf. St. Jn. 11:15; 6:26; 20:31). 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 211 

Leprosy was the type of sin. Demoniac possession pointed to 
the imperious author of all human ill. And death was the 
tragic issue. All these are routed by Jesus. The good news 
that it can be done is made known even to the poorest. They 
too may share the blessings as freely as nobleman's child, or 
centurion's servant, or daughter of a ruler of the synagogue. 
Rescue, rescue of men from ills in every form, its proclamation 
by word and act, which alike inspire a great confidence that no 
human ill can ultimately resist Him — that is Christ's mission." 
And again, on page 352, he says: "Christ's object in performing 
miracles was not simply to arrest attention or to alleviate clamant 
need, but by showing the mighty forces within the reach of 
faith, to develop in others that unhesitating faith in God which 
He himself possessed in His heavenly Father." The miracles of 
Jesus also show that the Kingdom of God means the redemp- 
tion of the human body, as well as the human soul. They reveal 
its essential dignity, and the abnormality of disease. They pro- 
test against undervaluation of the body, and mark health and 
strength — physical well-being — as the intent of God. They are 
the precursors, indeed, of hospitals, and of every legitimate 
development in medical science. It is this didactic and spiritual 
element which lifts the Gospel miracles above the miracles of the 
Apocryphal Gospels and of Ecclesiastical History, and stamps 
them with a distinct individuality. 1 

1 The Miracles, however, in spite of their character as "wonders" 
and "signs," were not able, and never will be able, in themselves 
alone to induce faith in Jesus. Like the Parables, they would 
prove efficacious only in the case of the spiritually minded. Of 
this, Jesus was fully aware. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, 
He represents Abraham as saying to the agonizing Dives, who 
pleads that a messenger be sent to warn his brethren of their 
impending fate: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (St. Lu. 16: 
31). Even a miracle of the signal character of one rising from the 
dead would prove utterly inadequate with those whose mental and 
moral sense did not respond to the spiritual truth revealed by 
Moses and the prophets. That Jesus was amply justified in this 
opinion, the infidelity of thousands in His own day, and especially 
since the resurrection attests (Cf. St. Jn. 12:27). Where, how- 
ever, spiritual receptivity existed in ever so slight degree, miracles 
would prove very helpful as credentials, and as the stepping stone 
to larger faith. This effect is evident in the following words : "But 
the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even 



212 Jesus' Idea 

Jesus, however, is represented in the New Testament as the 
center, no less than the source, of supernatural phenomena. 
At the very outset of His ministry we read: "And straightway 
coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and 
the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him: and there came 
a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased" (St. Mk. i :io, n, cf. St. Mt. 3: 
16, 17, St. Lu. 3:21, 22). The meaning of this incident of 
Jesus' Baptism is apparent. Whether we conceive of it as an 
objective reality — a visible symbol of a dove and an audible 
voice — or only as a subjective vision, Jesus' consecration of 
Himself in Baptism to the service of the approaching Kingdom 
is met by Heaven's inauguration of Him as the Kingdom's 
King and Founder. Destined from birth for this regal honor, 

the winds and the sea obey him?" (St. Mt. 8:27). After the 
description of the raising from the dead of the widow's son at 
Nain, we read: "And there came a fear on all: and they glorified 
God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us ; and that 
God hath visited his people" (St. Lu. 7:16). "This beginning of 
miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his 
glory; and his disciples believed on him" (St. Jn. 2:11, cf. 6:14; 
2:23). 

We must also note that the faith in Jesus which is due to 
miracles quickening a certain spiritual receptivity is not the highest 
type of faith. That which is born solely of a response to spiritual 
truth is infinitely nobler. Jesus Himself said : "Believe me that 
I am in the Father, and the Father in me ; or else believe me for 
the very work's sake" (St. Jn. 14:11). "Except ye see signs and 
wonders, ye will not believe" (4:48). Again after the resurrec- 
tion, He said to the doubting Thomas : "Thomas, because thou 
hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not 
seen, and yet have believed" (20:29). Because of this fact, Jesus 
strove to work miracles only where an incipient faith was present, 
declining to oblige an enquiring Herod (St. Lu. 23:8), and rebuking 
the Scribes and Pharisees, who sought from Him a sign : "An evil 
and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no 
sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas," i. e., the 
preaching of moral truth (St. Mt. 12:38-41). The faith, indeed, 
aroused in this way was of so poor a type, and so likely to lend 
itself to unspiritual conceptions (the support of the current Mes- 
sianic expectations) that Jesus often sought to suppress the report 
about the miracles which He performed. "Tell no man"; "See that 
no man know it," were frequent expressions on His lips (St. Mt. 
8:4; 9:30; St. Mk. 7:36). The Rev. George A. Gordon's book, 
"Religion and Miracle," furnishes a valuable and fascinating study 
of miracles as comparatively valueless as an aid to faith. 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 213 

and fitted for it by a peculiar spiritual relationship to the 
Father, the time had come for the conscious recognition and as- 
sumption of the royal duty. Hence we have the supernatural 
phenomena which marks Him henceforth as the Messiah — 
the Son of God — and reveals Him in this light to the fore- 
runner, John the Baptist. "And John bare record, saying, I 
saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode 
upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to 
baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou 
shait see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the 
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (St. Jn. 1: 
32, 33). The congruity of the incident, and the purpose which 
it served, convince one of its truthfulness. 

But passing on, we find Jesus, late in His ministry, the 
center of a more remarkable supernatural phenomenon. Some 
six or eight days after St. Peter's confession at Cassarea Philippi 
and Jesus' prediction of His death at the hands of the Jewish 
leaders, we have the incident of the Transfiguration. 1 The 
significance of this event is very great. The disciples had been 
utterly unable to appreciate Jesus' allusion to His death. Heaven, 

*"And it came to pass ... he (Jesus) took Peter and John and 
James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, 
the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was 
white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, 
which were Moses and Elias : Who appeared in glory, and spake 
of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter 
and they that were with him were heavy with sleep ; and when 
they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood 
with him. And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter 
said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here, and let us 
make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one 
for Elias : not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there 
came a cloud, and overshadowed them : and they feared as they 
entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, 
saying, This is my beloved Son : hear him. And when the voice 
was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told 
no man in those days any of these things which they had seen. 
(St. Lu. 9:28-36.) The parallel accounts are St. Mt. 17:1-8 and 
St. Mk. 9 :2-8. These accounts are quite similar : St. Matthew says, 
however, that when the disciples heard a voice, they fell on their 
faces, while "Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise and 
be not afraid." St. Luke is more independent. He alone tells us 
about Jesus praying, the subject of Moses and Elijah's conversation, 
and the sleepiness of the disciples. 



214 Jesus' Idea 

indeed, had opened their eyes to the fact of His Messiahship, 
but they did not appreciate the necessity for the Messiah's 
death. Jesus, in fact, stood absolutely alone. The disciples' 
failure to understand made His isolation complete. The 
situation was embarrassing alike to Him and to them. In this 
time of stress, He took the three disciples of deepest insight — 
Peter, James and John — and sought the lonely mountain side. 
There Heaven responded to their needs. The Transfiguration, 
indeed, was of vast moment to both Master and disciples. To 
the latter, it revealed a glimpse of the celestial glory of their 
Lord, and prepared them for the truth which had been so 
sorely puzzling them; namely, that the Messiah's death was in 
consonance with the Law and the Prophets. Moses and Elijah, 
the representatives of these, are seen to lead to Christ. The 
voice too — "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him" — would 
also forever settle any doubt as to his authority, placing it 
above even that of the Law and the Prophets. To Jesus 
Himself, the Transfiguration meant the removal of the sense 
of isolation. If men did not understand the necessity for 
His death, Heaven, at least, did. The Apostles of the Old 
Testament — Moses and Elijah — understood, if the Apostles 
of the New Testament did not. The voice, too, signified His 
Father's absolute ratification of His course (Cf. St. Mk. i: 
ii ; St. Mk. 3:17; St. Lu. 3:22). 

Thus, whether we regard this incident as an objective 
fact, or as real only in the sense of being a subjective vision, 
we can appreciate the fitness inherent in both the form and 
the content of the phenomenon. The thoughtful reader will 
also note how closely the supernatural phenomena of which 
Jesus is the center fulfil the condition which characterized 
the miraculous phenomena of which He was the source. Each 
incident is not merely a wonder but a "sign"; each is an event 
with a purpose; each bears a distinct relation to the Kingdom 
of God. How great a crisis, indeed, in the development of the 
Kingdom, the Transfiguration itself relieved, it is impossible 
to say. 

Yet other phenomena await us. The Resurrection of Jesus 
is par excellence the prime supernatural credential of Christian- 
ity. The fact of the Resurrection itself is indisputable. The 
artless, straightforward character of the account, indeed, goes 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 215 

far toward substantiating its truthfulness. Despite Jesus' refer- 
ence to the fact on several occasions (St. Mt. 16:21 ; 17:22, 23; 
St. Mk. 8:31; 9:31, 32; St. Lu. 9:22), the Apostles were 
utterly unprepared for so stupendous an event. They were not 
awaiting the Resurrection, and they would not believe its 
earliest report (St. Mt. 28:17; St. Mk. 16:1, 11, 13, 14; 
St. Jn. 20:25). "Their words seemed to them as idle tales, 
and they believed them not" (St. Lu. 24:11, cf. 36:43). 
Jesus also "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness 
of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him 
after he was risen" (St. Mk. i6:i4). x 

This stupendous fact, however, was the great theme of the 
Apostolic preaching, and it must necessarily have been so. 
Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah. His claim, however, 
had been rejected. But now the Resurrection had proved His 
claim. That He had actually risen from the dead, the Apostles 
fully believed. Nine appearances, in fact, of the risen Christ, 
during the space of forty days, are recorded. 2 Attempts have 

x The account of the Resurrection as given by St. Mark is as 
follows: "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and 
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, 
that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the 
morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher 
at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who 
shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? And 
when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away : for it 
was very great. And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a 
young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white gar- 
ment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not 
affrighted : Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is 
risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But 
go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you 
into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they 
went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher, for they trembled 
and were amazed : neither said they anything to any man ; for 
they were afraid' 5 (16:1-9). 

2 The appearance to the women of Galilee (St. Mt. 28:9, 10) ; to 
the Magdalene (St. Jn. 20:14-18) ; to the two disciples on the road 
to Emmaus (St. Lu. 24:13-35 cf . ; St. Mk. 16:12, 13) ; to Peter (St. 
Lu. 24:33, 34) ; to the disciples in Jerusalem, Thomas being absent 
(St. Mk. 16:14; St. Lu. 24:36-43; St. Jn. 20:19-25) ; to the disciples, 
Thomas being present (St. Jn. 20:26-29) ; to the seven disciples 
by the sea of Galilee (St. Jn. 21 :i-24) ; to the eleven (and probably 
others, cf. I. Cor. 15 :6) on a mountain in Galilee (St. Mt. 28:16-20) ; 
the last appearance (St. Lu. 24:44-49, 50-53). 



216 Jesus' Idea 

been made, however, along several lines to discredit the fact of 
the Resurrection. We are told, for instance, that Jesus did not 
really die, but simply swooned, and was restored to consciousness 
by the damp tomb; or that the whole account is legendary; or 
that the belief in the Resurrection was due to "mental hallu- 
cinations." These hypotheses, however, are unconvincing. A 
resuscitated man is utterly inadequate to account for the 
valor and the vigor of the early Church. Legends again require 
much time for development ; yet we find the story of the Resur- 
rection generally accepted at an early date, and recorded in 
Gospels written only some forty years after the event. Further, 
the fact is the presupposition of all of the Apostolic Letters. 
Four of St. Paul's Epistles — Romans, Galatians, and I and II 
Corinthians — even the most stringent criticism admits to be 
genuine. These were written before A. D. 60, that is, about 
twenty-five years after the death of Jesus, and they bear un- 
equivocal testimony to His Resurrection (Rom. 14:9; I Cor. 
15 13-7 ; Gal. 1:1). As for the theory of "mental hallucina- 
tions," we would say that if these continued for some six 
weeks, and had as their subjects so many different people on 
different occasions — as many as five hundred at one time — this 
in itself would be convincing evidence of the hand of God, 
and the guarantee of the reality of the vision; not of its 
illusory character. 

The external evidence for the Resurrection, however, is 
strongly supplemented by the inner probability of that event. 
The Resurrection of Jesus was not merely the resurrection of a 
man, it was the resuscitation of a Cause. The Kingdom of God 
was at stake; with the Crucifixion, its doom seemed to have 
been sealed, its future appeared hopeless, its King discredited. 
The Resurrection, however, changed the aspect of the situation 
entirely. It was, indeed, a mighty "sign," the sign that the 
King was not discredited, but accredited; that the cause of 
the Kingdom was not hopeless, but triumphant. It revealed 
Jesus at once as the Lord of both Life and Death, placed the 
imprimatur of God Himself upon all His claims, His teaching, 
and His work, and showed that those who trusted Him, whether 
in life or in death, would never be confounded. Had Jesus 
remained silent in the tomb in spite of His august Personal- 
ity, His sublime Teaching, and His mighty Works, humanity's 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 217 

trust in morality and truth must have been shaken to the 
foundation, and humanity's confusion in the presence of death 
must have been infinitely intensified. The fabric of faith would 
have tottered to its fall. Well, indeed, might St. Peter say: 
"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: 
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it" 
(Acts. 2:24,) In the light of the Resurrection, too, the 
disciples could understand many things about the Kingdom 
which had been obscure before. Jesus, in fact, standing in 
the light shed by this event, explained many matters to their 
keen satisfaction (St. Lu. 24:25-32; 44-47; Acts. 1:3). 
Taking, therefore, both the a priori and the a posteriori evi- 
dence, we may accept the following statement without hesi- 
tation: "The consensus of opinion among the best critics is 
that no past event stands on firmer historical grounds than that 
Jesus being dead rose again, and that His appearance to the 
disciples begot their faith anew, and filled them with en- 
thusiasm for their future work." 

The next supernatural event to demand attention is the 
Ascension. 1 The Kingdom, indeed, had now been inaugurated, 
the King had been accredited, and nothing remained but the 
Kingdom's development and extension. Could the interests of 
the Kingdom be better served by the King remaining on the 
earth, or by His withdrawal to become a spiritual presence — 
absent in body, yet present in spirit? The Ascension is the 
answer. The Master's arms were then outstretched to bless: 
the very attitude was significant of the reality. Despite the clear 
note of finality — the Ascension being the termination of the 
earthly appearances — the departure was a blessing, and it was 
so understood by the disciples: "They worshiped him, and re- 
turned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the 
temple, blessing God." This departure, indeed, meant the 
exaltation of their Lord, and it transformed the personal friend 
of the few into the spiritual Savior of the many. Heaven, 
too, would henceforth be their constant support in the extension 

1 This is described by St. Luke as follows : "And he led them 
out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed 
them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted 
from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, 
and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in 
the temple, praising and blessing God." (St. Lu. 24:50-53.) 



218 Jesus' Idea 

of the Kingdom, and a restricted sphere of activity had given 
place to a universal sphere. Besides, all power was now in 
the hands of their Lord: what need they fear then? 

Indeed, shortly before the Ascension, Jesus had said to the 
disciples: "Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued 
with power from on high" (St. Lu. 24:49). In Acts, 1:8, 
Jesus is represented as saying: "But ye shall receive power, 
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be 
witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and 
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." These 
remarks were inevitably associated by the disciples with the 
sayings of their Master at the Last Supper about the Holy 
Spirit. 1 In speaking of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was not intro- 
ducing the disciples to a new subject. Here, as elsewhere, He 
was building upon a Jewish foundation. Their Scriptures had 
made them well acquainted with the idea of "the Spirit," "the 
Spirit of God," and "a Holy Spirit." 2 Hence Jesus was as- 

1 "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
that he may abide with you forever ; even the Spirit of Truth ; whom 
the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
him : but ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in 
you." (St. Jn. 14:16, 17.) "But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you 
all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever 
I have said unto you." (Vs. 26, cf. 16:13-15.) "But when the 
Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, 
even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall 
testify of me : and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been 
with me from the beginning." (St. Jn. 15:26, 27.) The Holy 
Spirit, however, was also to bear an intimate relationship to the 
World as well as to the disciples. "Nevertheless I tell you the 
truth ; It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I 
will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the 
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, be- 
cause they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to 
my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the 
prince of this world is judged." (St. Jn. 16:7-11.) 

2 "The Holy Spirit," however, is not an Old Testament expression. 
"His" or "Thy" Holy Spirit is found only in Isa. 63:10, 11, and 
Psalm 51:11. Yet at the beginning of Genesis, we have the state- 
ment: "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 
(Gen. 1 :2.) Here the Spirit of God is an agent in Creation itself. 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 219 

sured of immediate attention, when He mentioned the Holy 
Spirit. Grieving over their Lord's departure, the Apostles were 
promised another Comforter. Jesus had been their strengthener 
or Comforter, but now another Strengthener would come, who 
would abide with them forever. The Greek word which is 
translated "Comforter" is parakletos, which means primarily an 
advocate — "one who pleads another's cause before a judge," but 
it was also used in the larger sense of a helper, or an assistant. 1 
Losing their Lord, and entrusted with the cause of Heaven, the 
Apostles' need of assistance and of comfort in the face of a hos- 
tile world is apparent. Jesus keenly appreciated the situation, 

Passing to Job, 33:4; 34:14, and Psalm 104:30, we find the Spirit 
as the conservator of life. The Spirit of God, too, made man a 
living soul (Gen. 2:7; Job. 32:8), conferring upon him his mental 
and moral faculties in general, and also specific powers of most 
diversified character: the artizan's skill (Ex. 36:1), military ability 
(Deut. 34:9), and conspicuous wisdom (I Ki. 22:24). (Cf. Gen. 
41 :38 ; Num. 27 : 18 ; 1 1 : 17 ; 24 :2 ; Ex. 28:3; 31 -.3-6. ) The inspiration 
of the prophets also was due preeminently to the Spirit of God. 
Ezekiel 11:5 is an illustration: "And the Spirit of the Lord fell 
upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the Lord." (Cf. 
Ez. 2:2; Dan. 4:8, 9; 5:11; Num. 11:17, 25, 29; 2 Sam. 28:2; I 
Ki. 22:24.) Again, the Messianic King would possess the fulness 
of the Spirit, as we have seen; the Spirit conferring the intellectual 
gifts of wisdom and understanding, the practical gifts of counsel 
and might, the religious gifts of knowledge and fear of the Lord. 
(Isa. 11:1-10, c. 61 ff.) The Spirit_ was also regarded as the 
author of man's moral and spiritual life. It was called a "holy" 
Spirit as the power-producing holiness. (Ps.51 :n ; Isa. 63 :io, 11, cf. 
Neh. 9:20; Ez. 36:26; Zech. 12:10.) In this aspect of its presence 
and power, the Spirit, as we have found, was to be more marked 
in the Messianic era. (Jer. 31; Ez. 36:26 ff. ; Joel 2:28.) 

According to the late Professor Davidson, "the Spirit of God" 
in the Old Testament was simply "God exerting power." "Person- 
ality," in an absolute sense, was not ascribed to the spirit ; whatever 
of personal qualities and of personal acts were ascribed to it, were 
due to its identification with "God exerting Power." (See Art. 
"Holy Spirit," by Swete, in Hasting's Bible Dictionary, vol. 2.) 
While the references to the "Spirit" are fewer in the Apocryphal 
Old Testament Literature than in the Canonical Testament, and 
reveal generally a lower conception — due perhaps to the ever- 
developing angelology of the period, many of the functions formerly 
attributed to the Spirit of the Lord being attributed to angels — this 
did not cause the popular mind to lose sight entirely of the Spirit's 
activity and mission. 

*In verses 21 and 23, this Assistant is identified alike with God 
and with Christ. 



220 Jesus' Idea 

and further, He specified in what direction their need lay, and 
what form their assistance would take. 

"The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach 
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
whatsoever I have said unto you" (St. Jn. 14:26). "How- 
beit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into 
all truth : for he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever 
he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you 
things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of 
mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father 
hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and 
shall show it unto you" (St. Jn. 16, 13-15). Jesus, indeed, 
had been the Apostles' teacher; but this Spirit will now take 
His place. Even the many things which Jesus had to say 
to the disciples, but which they could not then bear (vs. 12) 
would be declared by this Spirit of Truth, who would in this 
way glorify Jesus. We must not think, however, of the truth 
which would be disclosed as intellectual truth alone. The 
Greek, aletheia, here includes "a mode of life in harmony with 
divine truth." Theory and practise go hand in hand. Both 
intellectual truth and ethical practise, indeed, are the Spirit's 
mission. Further, because of the unique relationship which 
the disciples bore to Jesus the Spirit would also bring to their 
remembrance whatsoever He had said to them. In view of 
this, Alford may well say: "It is in the fulfilment of this 
promise to the Apostles that their sufficiency as witnesses of 
all that the Lord did and taught, and consequently the au- 
thenticity of the Gospel narrative is grounded." 

We make a sad mistake, however, if we interpret the Spirit's 
guidance into truth only in this sense, and restrict it to the 
Apostles. This promise, like that of the peace of God (vs. 27), 
the abiding presence of the Father and the Son (23), and the 
revelation of the Christ (21), is applicable, individually and 
universally, to all Christians. It guarantees to the brother- 
hood of Christ a perpetual progress into truth, born of a con- 
stantly enriched human experience, both mental and spiritual. 
Truth, indeed, does not depend upon a priesthood, a tradition, 
or an ecclesiastical creed, but upon honest hearts and the 
Spirit's guidance. Christ was an evolutionist. His mind 
\vas of the prophetic order. Humanity, indeed, from a re- 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 221 

ligfous, a political, a social, or an intellectual standpoint may 
always be divided into two classes — priests and prophets. 
The one worships at the shrine of the past; the other always 
hails the dawning future. To the priestly mind, every in- 
novation is revolutionary: it "worships the dead corpse of old 
King Custom, where it doth lie in state within the Church"; 
to the prophetic mind, many innovations are evolutionary: it 
realizes that "God fulfils Himself in many ways lest one good 
custom should corrupt the world." For Jesus, at least, the 
Golden Age of Truth was not in the past, but in the future. 
The Spirit would guide into all Truth. The Comforter was 
also to assist the disciples in bearing testimony to Christ. "But 
when the Comforter is come — he shall testify of me: And ye 
also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the 
beginning" (St. Jn. 15:26, 27). The evidence for the King- 
dom w T as thus to emanate from both an external and an internal 
source — the Apostles and the Spirit. The one was to supple- 
ment the other. This, indeed, has ever been the Kingdom's 
strength — the witness borne by the individual Christian in 
wT>rd and in deed, and that borne by the Spirit of Truth acting 
within the man, pleading and convincing (Cf. St. Mt. 10: 
igff; St. Mk. 13:11; St. Lu. 11:13; 12:11). 

The relation of the Spirit of Truth to the World, however, 
Jesus revealed more specifically. "When he is come, he will 
reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 
Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, be- 
cause I go to the Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, 
because the prince of this world is judged (St. Jn. 16, 8-11). 
The word here translated "reprove" means rather to convict, 
and, as Thayer tells us, "generally with a suggestion of the 
shame of the person convicted." The Spirit of God, then, 
was to convict the world, i. e., the human race estranged 
from God, in three particulars. It was to be compelled to take 
account of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Of sin, in 
that it had missed its aim because it did not believe in Jesus, 
did not accept Him as the Lord of its Life and its Opinion. 
Faith, indeed, is an active principle, not a passive virtue; be- 
lief in Jesus is not intellectual assent, but ethical consent; 
faith is service. The world's infidelity, let us remember, is 
not shown in the denial of facts about Jesus, but in a refusal 



222 Jesus' Idea 

to be led by Him. Of righteousness, in that the world would 
learn what was the condition which made a man acceptable to 
God. In contradistinction to Pharisaic righteousness — cere- 
monial religion — and scribal righteousness — intellectual religion 
— the Holy Spirit would convince of true righteousness — spirit- 
ual religion. The conviction of sin in itself would inevitably 
reveal this righteousness. In the hideousness of the one would 
be seen the beauty of the other. The positive would appear 
from the negative. And this would happen because Jesus 
was going to the Father, and the world would see Him no more. 
This means that in the light of His departure, the world would 
have clearer vision. Then peasant birth, humble environment, 
Jewish descent, obscurity, ignominious death — the accidents of 
His life — would be lost sight of in appreciation of His char- 
acter, His teaching, His aim, and His self-sacrificing service — 
the realities of His life. Then the world would have the true 
perspective; until then, it would see through a glass darkly. 
Men, indeed, are never appreciated at their true value, while 
they are alive. True biography must be written in the perspec- 
tive of time. 

The world would also be convicted of judgment, "because 
the prince of this world was judged." In the Crucifixion of 
Jesus, the world seemed to have passed judgment upon Him. 
In reality this event had passed judgment upon the world. 
The prince or ruler of the world was judged, in that a new 
standard of value was given to man; the former glory of the 
world, reveling in the blood of Jesus, was seen to be its 
shame. A great crisis, indeed, in human affairs had come. 
Henceforth men must judge all things in accordance with a new 
principle: the very principle, in fact, which they had crucified. 
The world was even then standing in the shadow of an 
impending judgment. Spiritual insight, indeed, had already re- 
vealed to Jesus the Crown supplanting the Cross. 

One can see at once in view of these declarations of Our 
Lord, how intimately the work of the Holy Spirit was related 
to the idea of the Kingdom of God. The Spirit would be 
Heaven's agency in the extension of the Kingdom; Heaven's 
supplement of man's endeavor, vitalizing the seed of truth sown 
by man in the congenial soil of human hearts. With the Spirit's 
advent, a new era would dawn for the Kingdom; its ma- 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 223 

chinery for extension would be complete. Hence Jesus, in 
spite of the fact of His departure, urged His Apostles to be 
joyous. 1 

1 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again 
unto you. If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because I said I go 
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (St. Jn. 14:28.) 
Because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your 
heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you 
that I go away : for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (St. Jn. 
16:6, 7.) Symbolic, too, of Jesus' promise was His action on the 
night after the Resurrection, when He appeared to the Apostles, 
and said : "Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even 
so send I you. And when He had said this, he breathed on them, 
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye 
retain, they are retained." (St. Jn. 20:21-23.) 

The fulfilment of the Master's promise is recorded in Acts 2, 
if we accept the narrative as historical. On the Day of Pentecost, 
when thousands of Jews had assembled in Jerusalem from foreign 
parts to observe the feast, "there came a sound from heaven as of 
a rushing mighty wind, filling all the house where the Apostles 
were, and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of 
fire, which sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
gave them utterance." The sound of the rushing wind probably 
recalled at once Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus, in which He 
had revealed the mysterious and the absolutely indefinable working 
of the Spirit : "The wind bloweth where it listeth. and thou hearest 
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither 
it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (St. Jn. 3:8.) 

In view of this teaching, the attempt to enchain the Spirit to the 
water, or even to the act of Baptism, or to the elements, or even 
to the act of the Lord's Supper, is futile on the very face of it. 
The Holy Spirit may organize men, but men cannot organize the 
Holy Spirit. Jesus, indeed, must have been unalterably opposed 
to such materialistic conceptions ; while His spirit and teaching 
made Him the inveterate opponent of the idea of an ecclesiastical 
institution, which should be the chief depository of the Holy 
Spirit, and its chief channel of communication : in other words, 
an ecclesiastical trust or monopoly, the earliest of all monopolies, 
the parent of all trusts, and the most remorseless. The darting 
tongues of fire would recall John's promise of the Messiah's bap- 
tism, which would "burn up the chaff" of error, sham, and evil 
"with unquenchable fire." (St. Mt. 3:11.) The gift of tongues, or 
the ability to speak in foreign languages, which enabled the Apostles 
to gain on that day many converts for the Kingdom, who would 
become its witnesses upon their return to their homes, thus pre- 



224 Jesus' Idea 

In the light of this teaching of Jesus about the Holy 
Spirit, the sublime meaning of the Baptismal Formula again 
comes into view. Into that Spirit of Truth and of Holiness, 
into which the Father had baptized Him — the Spirit, which 
according to Jesus' own testimony, was the source of His 
Teaching and His Miracles (St. Mt. 12:28; St. Lu. 4:18; 
St. Jn. 14:10), He would baptize the Apostles, who in turn 
should baptize the nations of the earth. Language is inade- 
quate to do justice to the sublimity of this conception. That 
Jesus' emphasis, however, was upon the function rather than 
the "Personality" of the Spirit is patent to every reader of 
the New Testament page. While He did perhaps speak of 
the Spirit as "he," and thus appears to justify the orthodox 
Christian faith, yet many thoughtful minds have agreed with 
Beyschlag that this personal reference is "just a pictorial per- 
sonification," and that "the notion of the Holy Spirit as a 
third Divine personality — is one of the most disastrous im- 
portations into the Holy Scriptures" ("N. T. Theology," Eng. 
Translation. Vol. 2, p. 279), and yet they have not lost faith 
in the Spirit's work. This brings vividly to our attention one 
of those monstrous anomalies which exist and thrive in the 
Christian Church: A man may deny totally the Holy Spirit in 
the conduct of his daily life, and yet be a member of the 
visible Church, have obsequious attention paid to him by 
titled ecclesiastics — upholders of the much-talked of "Catholic 
Faith" — while the man whose whole life is attuned to the 
Spirit's guidance, yet who cannot and does not accept the 
"personality" of the Holy Spirit, cannot be a member of the 
orthodox ( ?) Church, and is often, with much patronizing con- 
descension on the part of both intellectual and moral vacuity, 
accounted a "heretic." Manifestly, God's ways are not man's 
ways, nor are His thoughts man's thoughts even in His "Holy 
Church" of which we frequently hear so much. 

Having now considered some of the supernatural features 
of the Gospel, let us say that, whatever may be our attitude 
toward the Supernatural and the Kingdom, any candid mind 
must admit that there is a unity, a harmony, and congruity in 

paring the soil for the future labors of the Apostles, was a distinct 
evidence of the universal aim or extent of the Kingdom. This 
gift, however, was not a permanent one. (Cf. St. Mk. 16:17.) 



The Kingdom and the Supernatural 225 

the relation of the two as they are disclosed in the Gospels that 
makes for truthfulness. The Supernatural occurrence and the 
Teaching harmonize; the miraculous events accord with each 
other; part fits in with part; the whole is logical and rational. 
Further, the very idea — "The Kingdom of God" — posits a 
supernatural element. Such an element, indeed, was to be ex- 
pected in view of what Jesus was endeavoring to do with a 
sinful humanity: establish the sovereignty of God. This 
thought, also, assists us in interpreting the miracles of the Old 
Testament; not that we are to accept unquestioningly the 
miraculous character of every event which purports to be a 
miracle, for we are rather to question them severely. We 
should, however, bear in mind the unique mission of Israel, 
which, under certain circumstances, would render the perform- 
ance of miracles likely. This thought also gives the point of 
view from which to determine the possibility and the probability 
of the various New Testament miracles, and also of later ec- 
clesiastical miracles. 



CHAPTER XV 

THE VICEGERENT OF THE KINGDOM 

In view of the Teaching and the Works of Jesus, we are 
not surprised to find that men both wondered and questioned 
with regard to Him. "From whence hath this man these 
things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, 
that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is 
not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, 
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon ? and are not his sisters 
here with us?" (St. Mk. 6:2, 3.) Yet "never man spake like 
this man." "Who is this that even the winds and the sea 
obey him?" The problem, indeed, that perplexed his country- 
men has perplexed the world. Who was this man of this 
august idea, these mighty works, this majestic personality? 
He flashed across the sky of human life like a meteor, brilliant 
and dazzling, whose splendor was unequaled before and has 
remained unrivaled, challenging comparison and classification. 
Jesus and His idea, indeed, are so intimately related — the 
idea being incarnate in the Man — that any study of His idea 
would be incomplete without some consideration as to His 
Person. Hence we ask: Who was this Man? What, especially, 
did He say of Himself? 

As soon as this question is asked, Jesus' self-selected and 
self-imposed title — "Son of Man" — presents itself for con- 
sideration. This title is represented as being used by Jesus 
about eighty times in the Synoptic Gospels, while it is never 
applied to Him by His followers except in the speech of St. 
Stephen (Acts 7:56). If we study these various passages in 
detail, we find that they refer to Jesus under two rather para- 
doxical aspects: that of suffering or humiliation, and that of 
majesty. This at first sight perplexes. We know also that the 
title was not a commonly accepted designation for the Mes- 
siah, because Jesus carefully concealed His Messiahship, while 

226 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 227 

freely applying this expression to Himself. It was not, however, 
an unknown term. In the Old Testament, we find the expres- 
sion used in several senses. 1 

There can be little doubt, however, that Jesus' use of the 
title was historically connected with Daniel 7:13. There 
we find the historic expression of Jesus' great idea and theme — 
"The Kingdom of God." Hence nothing could be more 
likely than the derivation of this title from the same source. 
This is indicated, too, in marked manner by Jesus' obvious 
reference to this passage in the apocalyptic discourse in St. 
Matthew 24:30: "And then shall appear the sign of the 
Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the 

1 In Psalm 8:4, for instance, it refers to man as the subject of 
weakness and mortality: "What is man, that thou art mindful of 
him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him." In the Book 
of Ezekiel it is used some eighty times to designate the prophet, 
especially emphasizing the aspect of weakness. In Daniel 7:13, 
as we have found, the expression was applied to Israel as the 
Founder of a Kingdom humane in character, while later it was 
thought in limited circles to refer to the personal Messiah. This 
conception, indeed, characterizes its use in the Apocalyptic Book 
of Enoch. Illustrative of this usage are the passages : "And I 
asked the angel who went with me and shewed me all the hidden 
things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he 
was" (46:1). "For the Son of Man has appeared and sits on the 
throne of his glory" (69:29). Scholars are divided in opinion as 
to whether the portion of this book — the Similitudes, Chs. 37 \ji — 
which contain these references to the Son of Man are pre-Christian 
or post-Christian in origin. Hence it is impossible to judge of the 
influence, if any, of this book upon Jesus' usage of this title. But 
just how this title came to be applied to an individual is, indeed, a 
puzzling question. 

Jesus' motive in the selection of this title has been variously 
explained. Meyer says, for instance, that He intended it to signify 
simply the Messiah. Schleiermacher and Neander find in it the idea 
of the Ideal Man. Orr, Baur, and others, combine these two ideas, 
and make it signify a Messiah who is the Ideal Man. Wendt finds 
the title indicative of Jesus' weakness and dignity, Daniel furnishing 
the form of the title, and other passages its content. Charles, again, 
interprets the expression as combining the idea of majesty disclosed 
in Daniel, and the Suffering Servant of Jehovah in the Second 
Isaiah. Others, however, empty the term of Messianic significance, 
and make it the equivalent of the Aramaic word for man — bamasha. 
Others, again, find its significance in the promise in Genesis that 
the seed of the woman should crush the serpent's head. Jesus was 
this Son of Man, they claim. 



228 Jesus' Idea 

earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the 
clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (cf. St. Mk. 
13:26; St. Lu. 21:27); and in His admission before the 
Sanhedrin: "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting 
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of 
heaven" (St. Mt. 26:64, cf. St. Mk. 14:62). By means of 
this title, then, Jesus referred to Himself as the Founder 
and the Head of the Kingdom of God. Borrowing the Old 
Testament term, He fulfilled it however. The expression 
became with Him not only a title, but an index to character. 
It revealed not only the King of the Kingdom, but one who 
through humiliation and suffering entered into the glory of 
sovereignty. It suggested not only Daniel's imperial vision, 
but the prophetic idea of the Messiah's triumph through weak- 
ness and pain. 

Possessing these merits, the title served admirably as a 
veiled designation of the Messiah. 1 This expression, indeed, 
was as suggestive as the parables themselves. The same motive, 
too, probably governed its selection, and certainly the same 
principle conditioned appreciation of its meaning. To all it 
was puzzling; to some it remained insoluble; to those of 
spiritual insight it disclosed the Person and the Pathway of 
the Messiah. 2 Indeed, the implication of this title is pro- 
found and far-reaching. This must have especially com- 
mended it to the poetic temperament of Jesus. For instance, 
the Son of Man "comes with the clouds of heaven." Pro- 
fessor Dalman suggests that it would be more appropriate 
if the one like to a son of man were to come "upon the clouds 
of heaven," and remarks that such a reading appears to be 
presupposed by the Greek of the Septuagint in Daniel 7:13. 
He then adds: "It belongs to God only to move upon the 
clouds; see Isa. 19:1, Ps. 104:3." And after explaining how 
"upon" probably would have been changed into "with" by a 
subsequent writer to "minimize the divine manifestation in the 
one like to a son of man," he says: "But even if one reads 

1 Jesus' teaching was the product of intuition: hence its form 
was illustrative, rather than argumentative. 

2 To the Apostles, the meaning of the expression became some- 
what apparent at Qesarea Philippi, while it was disclosed to the 
Jewish nation in Jesus' confession before the Sanhedrin, which has 
been quoted above. 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 229 

'with/ the fact remains that the destined possessor of the uni- 
versal dominion comes, not from the earth, far less from the sea, 
but from heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation 
to God, well fitted to typify the people of the saints of God. 
It is noteworthy that nothing more is said of him than that he 
resembles man. He is distinguished from the four beasts, not 
because he alone possesses reason; the first beast, according to 
7:14, receives a man's heart, the last has 'the eyes of a man,' 
and can speak. The emphasis rather lies on the fact that in con- 
trast with the winged lion, the devouring bear, the four- 
headed leopard, the fourth beast with ten horns terrible ex- 
ceedingly beyond its predecessors, he appears unarmed and 
inoffensive, incapable through any power of his own of making 
himself master of the world; he is only as a son of man. If 
ever he is to be master of the world, God must make him so." 
("The Words of Jesus," p. 242.) The humane character 
of the Son of Man in contrast with the brutishness of his 
predecessors, would also suggest intense human sympathy. Now 
because of this great suggestiveness, Jesus gladly availed Him- 
self of the term, while carefully avoiding the popular designa- 
tion for the expected Messiah — "The Son of David." Con- 
tradicting in every particular the current Messianic expectation, 
it yet brought out His relation to the earth and to man, while 
suggesting much with regard to Himself. 

This title, however, does not exhaust Jesus' testimony to 
Himself. Additional disclosures group themselves around the 
title — "Son of God." While this expression is never explicitly 
applied by Jesus to Himself in the Synoptic Gospels, it is im- 
plicitly applied, and is frequently used of Him by others. In 
St. John's Gospel, however, the term is frequently used by 
Jesus. What, then, is signified by its use? Here again we must 
turn to the Old Testament, And there a diversified usage 
awaits us. 1 Taking the title itself, however, as it was used 

1 In Genesis 6:1-4, the title is applied to angels: "The sons of 
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ; and they took 
them wives of all which they chose." In Psalm 82 :6, 7, it is applied 
to judges or magistrates: "I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of 
you are children of the Alost High." In Deuteronomy 14:1, 2, and 
Hosea 1:10, it is used of an individual Israelite. In 2 Samuel 7:14, 
and Psalm 89:27, and 2:7, the term is used especially of the 
Theocratic King. In Exodus 4:22, Israel as a nation is spoken 



230 Jesus' Idea 

among the Jews, its patent senses are the human, the official, and 
the ethical. The "Son of God" is either simply a human being, 
or one chosen for some special mission, or one bearing special 
moral and spiritual resemblance to God. It now remains for us 
to consider the sense or senses of the title as it is applied to 
Jesus. 

The expression is never used of Jesus by Himself or by 
others as the mere equivalent of a human being. Whatever 
the motive may have been, Jesus, if we may trust the Greek 
of the Gospels, always carefully preserved a distinction between 
Himself and humanity in general. He speaks, for instance, of 
"My Father" (St. Mt. 11:27, 20:23, 25:34, 26:29, 53; St. Lu. 
10:22), and of "your" or "thy" Father (St. Mt. 6:8; 10:20, 
29; 13:43; 6:4, 18) with careful discrimination, and if we 

of as Jehovah's Son— "even my first-born." Generalizing from these 
instances, and speaking freely, we may say that "a son of God" in 
the Old Testament sense is "one uniquely loved, chosen, and endowed 
by God." In the extra-canonical literature of the Jews, only the 
Book of Enoch and Fourth Esdras use the title. While it is not 
employed specifically of the Messiah in the Old Testament, it is 
so employed in these books. Jehovah is represented as saying: "For 

1 and my Son will unite with them forever in the paths of up- 
rightness in their lives; and ye will have peace." (Enoch 105:2.) 
"For my Son, Messias, shall be revealed with those that are with 
him." (4 Es. 7:28, cf. 7:29.) Thus, among the Jews, the expression 
was occasionally used as a title for the Messiah. 

The chief source, however, in the Old Testament for this use 
is Psalm 2 \j : "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; 
this day have I begotten thee." But this language, which is used of 
the king of the Theocracy, must be considered in connection with 

2 Samuel 7:14, where the promise is made that Jehovah will be to 
the house of David as a father is to a son: "I will be his father, 
and he shall be my son." In the Psalm, the title is used simply of 
one who is anointed of God, and receives the heathen for inheritance 
and the uttermost parts of the earth for possession (vs. 8). While 
"Son of God" in the popular thought of to-day suggests at once 
divine descent, it was not so among the Jews. Unlike the Egyptians 
and even the Romans, the Jews did not ascribe divine origin either 
to the nation or to its kings ; hence the idea of the "Anointed" 
Son possessing the divine nature was foreign to them. Because 
of this idea of Divine Descent, however, in the Hellenic world, the 
term, "Son of God," would be interpreted as signifying the divine 
origin of Jesus, quite as naturally as "the Son of Man" would 
suggest His essential humanity. (See Dalman, "Words of Jesus," 
pp. 288, 289.) 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 231 

may judge from St. Luke 2:49, this usage dates from His 
childhood. The only apparent violation of this rule is in the 
words "Our Father" of the Lord's Prayer. These, however, 
were a necessity, if He would furnish His followers with a 
model prayer. This careful distinction is also preserved in the 
Fourth Gospel by means of the words "only begotten Son" 
that is a son different from other sons in marked manner. 

In an official sense, the title is applied to Our Lord both 
by Himself and by others. St. Peter's response to Jesus' ques- 
tion at Caesarea Philippi, according to St. Matthew's version, 
is: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This 
meant, of course, that Jesus was the "Anointed" one, or the 
Messiah. In commending St. Peter's insight, Jesus admitted 
the truthfulness of his avowal, and thus practically applied the 
title to Himself. 1 Perhaps the most explicit use of this title, 
however, in an official sense was Jesus' declaration before the 
Sanhedrin: "The High Priest . . . said unto him, I adjure thee 
by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, 
the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said" (St. 
Mt. 26:63; cf. St. Mk. 14:61 and St. Lu. 22:66-71). The 
title, however, is frequently applied to Jesus by others in this 
sense. At His Baptism, the Divine Voice declared: "Thou art 
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (St. Mk. 1:11; 
St. Lu. 3:22; St. Mt. 3:17). A similar declaration was also 
made at the Transfiguration (St. Mt. 9:8; St. Lu. 9:35; St. 
Mt. 17:5). Here the official sense, while not exclusive, is 

1 St. Mark 8:27-30, and St. Luke 9:18-21, make Peter say simply, 
'Thou art the Christ." If this is the original, St. Matthew at least 
offers an interesting use of the expression. In speaking of the 
time of the Parousia, Jesus says : "Of that day, and that hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither 
the Son, but the Father." (St. Mt. 13:32, cf. Zech. 14:7 and Ps. 
Sol. 12 :23.) Here the reference is manifestly to Himself as the 
Son of God. In the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, as we 
have seen, Jesus identifies Himself with the son of the Lord of 
the Vineyard, the heir of the inheritance. Since God is manifestly 
the Lord, Jesus is the Son of God. "Having therefore one son, his 
well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will 
reverence my son." (St. Mk. 12:6.) Again in the parable of the 
King's Supper, Jesus implies that He is the Son of God. "The 
Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a 
marriage for his son." (St. Mt. 22:2.) 



232 Jesus' Idea 

prominent. 1 

The ethical sense of this expression, however, is paramount 
in the New Testament. Jesus, at least, could have been satis- 
fied with nothing less than this usage. He was preeminently 
the Son of God in that He bore most intimate spiritual re- 
lationship to the Father. This is evident from His own words : 
"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any 
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal him" (St. Mt. 11:27, cf. St. Lu. 10:22). These 
words, indeed, are most significant. They imply an ethical 
unity between Jesus and God which is absolutely indivisible, 
and upon which hangs the revelation of Jesus. The words 
of Dalman are so helpful here that we quote them. "Between 
Father and Son there exists a perfect mutual understanding 
so unique, that any other persons could participate in the com- 
plete knowledge of the Father only through the medium of the 
Son. The two clauses referring to the knowledge of the Son 
by the Father and of the Father by the Son must therefore 
be taken together, and not independently expounded. They 
really constitute a detailed Oriental mode of expressing the 
reciprocity of intimate understanding. But in this case of 
mutual understanding, its thoroughness and absolute infallibility 
are assumed. He who stands in so uniquely close relation to 
God is the only possible mediator of the kind, and also at the 
same time the absolutely reliable revealer of the whole wealth 
of divine mysteries." ("Words of Jesus," p. 283.) 

Jesus was thus in a unique sense the Son of God. While 
men could become sons of God: "Blessed are the peace- 
makers: for they shall be called the children of God;" "Love 
your enemies — that ye may be the children of your Father 
which is in heaven," Jesus was ab initio the Son of God. "Be- 

1 The demoniacs of Gadara are also represented as addressing 
Jesus as the Son of God. (St. Mk. 5 7; St. Lu. 8:28; St. Mt. 8:29.) 
Again the multitude at the Cross, according to St. Matthew, mock 
Jesus, crying: "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the 
cross," while the centurion exclaims : "Truly this man was the 
Son of God." (St. Mk. 15:39; St. Mt. 27:54; cf. St. Lu. 23:47; 
St. Matthew 27:40. St. Mark 15:32, however, has "the Christ, the 
king of Israel"; St. Luke 23:37, "the King of the Jews.") Associa- 
tion with the Jews may have made the centurion conversant with 
their use of the title, or he may have intended simply a demi-god. 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 233 

coming" was impossible and unnecessary. This spiritual union 
of Jesus with the Father is also to be posited from the Divine 
Voice at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration. In fact, it dis- 
closes itself throughout the entire career of Jesus: in His 
prayers, in His actions, and in His words. Everywhere it 
presents the character of uniqueness. Dalman is again helpful: 
"The peculiar relation of Jesus to God is one that cannot be 
transmitted to others or be subject to change. His disciples, in- 
deed, through His means attain the same knowledge of God that 
He Himself possessed. But their knowledge is derived through 
a medium, while His is acquired by direct intuition" (p. 284). 
This ethical union with the Father is also a basic thought in 
the Fourth Gospel. It is most conspicuous in the following 
passages: St. John 3:16-21; 5:16-47; 6:32-58; 8:45-58; 10:30- 
38; 14:11 ; 17:5, 21, 23. We will quote only one or two of the 
texts, however. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art 
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that 
the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (17:21). "I 
and my Father are one" (10:30). "The Son can do nothing 
of himself but what he seeth the Father do: for what things 
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (5:19). 

Now this ethical union of Jesus with God in itself raises 
a question of vast import. How was it that this man alone 
of all the sons of men possessed this peculiar affinity? From 
the beginning of time, no other man has borne an ethical resem- 
blance to God of so intimate a character as to fit him to be an 
absolute intermediary between heaven and earth. How, then, 
shall we explain the sinlessness — the absolute ethical purity of 
Jesus? No thoughtful mind, indeed, can escape the problem, 
and the solution at once beckons us toward the realm of 
metaphysics, where we consider the innermost essence of being. 
The question then becomes: Was Jesus the Son of God only 
in an official and an ethical sense, or is an even more intimate 
essential relationship to be claimed for Him? 

Upon this point there are no absolutely clear statements 
in the Synoptic Gospels. There are, however, some very 
suggestive passages. 1 But with the Fourth Gospel we advance 
a step. Implicit testimony becomes explicit testimony. For 

1 See Appendix J, "The Metaphysical Sonship of Jesus in the 
Synoptic Gospels." 



234 Jesus' Idea 

instance, Jesus is represented as saying to the disciples: "What 
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was 
before?'' (St. John 6:62). This statement also is convincing: 
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it 
and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not 
yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus 
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham 
was, I am" (8:56-58). This seems to imply that Jesus ex- 
isted before Abraham was born. Jesus also cries: "O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had 
with thee before the world was . . . Father, I will that they also, 
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they 
may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou 
lovedst me before the foundation of the world" (17 : 5» 2 4)« 
Now it seems impossible fairly to explain such language figura- 
tively. The language is unprecedented and unique; it is fact, 
or it is nothing. Further we have here only the direct avowal 
of that for which the Synoptic Gospels have prepared us — the 
Supernatural Character and the Preexistence of the Son Him- 
self. This doubtlessly is the conviction which has been growing 
upon the reader of these pages. Many statements, indeed, in the 
Gospels indicate the superhuman and the transcendent in Christ. 
His regal tone everywhere exhibited, but especially in such a 
passage as St. Matthew 24:35 (cf. St. Lu. 21:33): "Heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away;" 
His august claims: to an authority and affection greater than 
that given to father and mother (St. Mt. 10:37, cf. St. Lu. 
14:26), to forgive sins (St. Mt. 9:2-6; 5:20-24), to judge men 
according to their personal relationship to Himself (St. Mt. 
5:21; 12:8; 19:4), and to be the peace of the weary soul (St. 
Mt. 11:28), are only adequately explained by His essential 
Deity. The authoritative note in Jesus' teaching, His filial 
consciousness, and His promise to send the Holy Spirit also in- 
cline to a similar conclusion. 

We thus see why Jesus so carefully distinguished between 
His own Sonship to God, and that of other men. We also 
see why St. Paul and St. John could bear such unequivocal 
testimony to Jesus' Divinity. The Apostle to the Gentiles 
could say: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
Jesus : Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 235 

be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and 
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men : And being found in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
death of the Cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
him, and given him a name which is above every name: That 
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to 
the glory of God the Father" ( Phil. 2 :6-i 1 ) . St. John, writing 
subsequently, could add: "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The 
same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by 
him; and without him was not anything made that was made. 
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And 
the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended 
it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was 
John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the 
Light, that all men through him might believe. He was 
not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world 
was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto 
his own, and his own received him not. But as many as re- 
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, 
even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not 
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten 
of the Father,) full of grace and truth 1 ' (i:i-I4). 1 

1 See also 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1 and 2 chapters, and Heb. 
1 :i-4. These passages show that the Prologue to the Fourth 
Gospel is only a fuller, and more concrete enunciation of an earlier 
Christian conviction and belief. (See Appendix K, "The Logos 
Idea.") 

This interpretation of the Personality of Jesus, however, is dis- 
pleasing to some. Schweitzer in his admirable book, "The Quest of 
the Historical Jesus," recounts the chief attempts at other inter- 
pretations for more than a hundred years. Apart from its value 
as a Historical Resume and Criticism, the chief value of the volume 
lies in the futility of the quest which it records. Nevertheless a 
crucial question of our time is this : Admitting readily the Pauline 



236 Jesus' Idea 

Thus we find that the idea of the Kingdom of God as set 
forth in the New Testament has not only the prestige of Truth, 
and of self-evidencing Power, of Miracles, and of a spotless 
Personality, which became the center of supernatural phenom- 
ena, but it has also the prestige of having the Eternal Son 
of God — Himself Supernatural — as its Sponsor, Apologist and 
Advocate. And further, the end is certainly worthy of the 
means. The Kingdom of God is redemption, salvation, and 
the consummation of the Eternal Purpose, and this certainly 
is worthy of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Again, in 
the light of this reasonable Incarnation, how plausible miracles 
become, and also the Supernatural Phenomena of which Jesus 
was the Subject. We begin, also, to realize the pregnancy 
of the words — ''The Kingdom of Heaven" — the Kingdom of 
God, indeed, not only in its character, but in its source and 
Prime Agent. 

A concluding thought now awaits us. If a Divine Being was 
to enter into human life, how was such entrance to be effected? 
The answer of the Gospel is the Virgin Birth of Christ. 1 
This at once brings us face to face with the most startling 
supernatural feature in the New Testament. The story of the 
Virgin Birth, however, is extremely surprising when we 
note the numerous passages in the Gospels — even in St. Mat- 
thew and in St. Luke — in which Jesus is popularly regarded as 
the natural son of Joseph and Mary. Questions and allu- 
sions alike reveal this clearly (St. Jn. 1:45; St. Mt. 13:55; 
St. Mk. 6:3; St. Lu. 4:22, 2:27, 41:43, 33:48). 2 This, how- 
ever, upon reflection, is what one would expect. The fact 

and Johanine interpretation of the Person of Christ, what is its 
worth? Is it fact or mere theological speculation? Another hardly 
less crucial question is this : Admitting the authoritative character 
of their interpretation, what is its relationship to essential Chris- 
tianity? Is it an integral element or a non-essential of belief? 

1 We must bear in mind, however, that the accounts of the Virgin 
Birth, when taken by themselves, obviously record the begetting of 
a new being. 

2 To this common supposition, and the conviction that Jesus as 
the Messiah, or Son of David, must be descended from David, we 
owe also the genealogies given in St. Matthew 1 n-18 and St. Luke 
3 123-38, both of which, according to general admission, are geneal- 
ogies of Joseph, and attempts to trace Jesus' descent from David 
through him. 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 237 

of the Virgin Birth would naturally be very slow in becoming 
known, because of the very delicacy of the subject. Joseph and 
Mary would keep the great secret to themselves, not only in 
their own interest, but especially in the interest of the Child, 
shrinking from the possible base accusations of slanderous 
tongues. Subsequently, too, Christianity had enough obstacles 
in its early progress without rearing an additional one in the 
wide-spread proclamation of the Virgin Birth. To-day even, 
this truth is not among the first taught to children, neither is 
it in the forefront of discreet missionary preaching. To the 
child, the fact is unintelligible; to the heathen, it is fantastic. 
Again, Jesus never made the fact a part of His teaching, nor a 
sign of His authority. In doing so, indeed, He would have 
violated His self-chosen principle of appealing to man simply 
as man, that is, along the line of His humanity. The Apostles 
themselves were probably unaware of the Virgin Birth for a 
long while, and some of them may have died without any 
knowledge of the fact. The event itself could only have become 
at all intelligible after the Apostles had become convinced of 
Jesus' essential Divinity, and of this, as we have seen, they 
were not convinced at first. Faith in Jesus' divinity, in fact, 
arose from an ardent faith in His humanity. Mary herself was 
probably never fully aware of the unique character of her 
Son. The angel's message meant to her simply that her child 
would be the Messiah of the Jews, who had been super- 
naturally conceived by the Holy Ghost. Hence the writers 
of the Gospels are true to fact when they represent Jesus as 
popularly regarded as the son of Joseph and Mary. It becomes 
necessary, then, to ask: Where shall we turn for the origin of 
the strange story given by St. Matthew and by St. Luke? x 

The source of St. Matthew's narrative, which is centered 
about Joseph in a peculiar manner, is unknown. St. Luke's 
information, however, is commonly regarded as having come 
more or less directly from the Virgin herself. (Cf. St. Lu. 
2:19, 51.) Professor Ramsey, indeed, says: "Luke gives, from 
knowledge gained within the family, an account of facts known 
only to the family, and in part to the Mother alone." ("Was 
Christ born at Bethlehem?" p. 79). The womanly delicacy 
and reserve in the narrative itself is also in favor of this conclu- 
1 See Appendix L, "The Accounts of the Virgin Birth." 



238 Jesus' Idea 

sion. However, from whatever source the Evangelist's in- 
formation was derived, the story of the Virgin Birth, and the 
attendant circumstances bear the stamp of intrinsic probability, 
while the very sobriety of the narrative convinces of its truth- 
fulness. The Virgin Birth is certainly in harmony with 
the general conception of Jesus as we find it in the New Testa- 
ment. (See, for instance, St. Jn. 3:31 ; I Cor. 15:47.) Every- 
thing, indeed, seems to lead to the idea of "the Word made 
flesh." And if the Word was made flesh, is it not antecedently 
probable that the Holy Ghost (of course, in the Old Testament 
signification of the term — "God exerting power") would over- 
shadow a Virgin, and become the agent in the conception ? It is, 
indeed, somewhat difficult to see how the Word could have 
become flesh in a person born of human father and mother. 
If, however, God, for His own wise purposes, wished to enter 
into humanity, and to take, as it were, humanity into himself, 
the Virgin Birth commends itself as the reasonable expedient, 
as we shall see. Aptly then does Professor Stanton remark: 
"The chief ground on which thoughtful Christian believers are 
ready to accept it (the miraculous birth) is that, believing in the 
personal indissoluble union between God and man in Jesus 
Christ, the miraculous birth of Jesus seems to them the only 
fitting accompaniment of this union, and, so to speak, the natural 
expression of it in the outward order of facts." ("The Jewish 
and the Christian Messiah," p. 376fL) 1 

The circumstances attending this extraordinary event, too, 
betray an eminent sense of the fitness of things. If a celestial 
Being was to enter into humanity, what could be more likely 
than remarkable attendant phenomena, even though the Being 
had elected to live a life of lowliness? Further, the person- 
ages concerned in these phenomena are of the sort we should 
expect: not the great of earth, nor those in the eye of the 
public, but those who in modesty and obscurity live for the 
inner, not for the outer life. The events themselves, also, 
harmonize with their purported cause. An "outburst of proph- 
ecy" was indeed most seemly (St. Lu. 1:15, 80, 41:67). 
That Jew and Gentile, Heaven and Earth, should be intimately 
concerned in the birth of the Savior of the World is not 

1 See Appendix M, "Some Explanations of the Story of the Virgin 
Birth." 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 239 

surprising. Every feature of the story, in fact, bears the stamp 
of unique genius. How beautiful, for instance, is the incident 
of the angel's speaking to the shepherds who watched their 
flocks by night, reminding us of the fact that celestial voices 
are only heard by those who are near to nature's heart. How 
prophetic, too, was the visit of the Wise Men, the first-fruits of 
the great Gentile world, which was as sorely in need of the 
Messiah as the Jewish and which was to lay at the feet of 
Jesus so much that was priceless! In these events, again, we 
find that sense of congruity, which has impressed us more than 
once, and which reveals them as the outcome of Divine Logic, 
not of human reasoning, or poetic allegorizing. Even those 
who reject the Virgin Birth cannot escape its fascination. We 
quote from Wilhelm Soltau, who denies the fact: "Even if there 
are some who cannot suppress certain doubts with regard to 
this dogma, yet the very same persons will, as a matter of fact, 
seldom be able to resist the fascination exercised by the delightful 
legends of Jesus' childhood, which form the basis of these 
postulates of the creed — a fascination felt by every one who 
is still able to appreciate child-like piety and a popular form 
of poetry. The manger of Bethlehem, notwithstanding its poor 
surroundings, has always been the most charming feature in 
the whole of the Christmas episode. The shining star, the 
adoring Magi, the startled shepherds, and, above all, the angel 
host chanting its song of praise — what is there that can be com- 
pared with this in the religious literature of any other people? 
And, to turn merely to the mystery surrounding the early his- 
tory (Luke 1:5-80). Never has the Deity seemed to draw 
so close to man as He did on this occasion." ("The Birth of 
Jesus Christ," p. 4.) A similar feeling of respect for the story 
of the Virgin Birth is evident also in Lobstein's "The Virgin 
Birth of Christ." 

That the story of the Virgin Birth is true, we fully believe. 
If it be said that the fact is so mysterious that it arouses distrust, 
we answer that Christianity is only the supreme mystery in a 
world that is full of mysteries. Man himself is a mystery 
of the first magnitude. Familiarity breeds contempt, and 
long familiarity with the ordinary processes of nature has 
blinded the average man to the abounding mysteries of the 
natural world. Were the eyes open, it would be seen that all 



240 Jesus 1 Idea 

is supernal. The demand, however, which belief in the 
Virgin Birth makes upon human credulity is not one whit 
greater than that which the evolutionist makes when he de- 
mands our assent to the proposition that "in that little speck 
of jelly at the first dawn of life — there lies wrapped up, only 
waiting for development, the promise and potency of the 
whole subsequent evolution of life." Again, the question of 
the Virgin Birth, like the question of Evolution — borrowing 
once more the phraseology of Professor Orr — "is not one to 
be settled a priori, but to be brought to the test of facts." 
("The Christian View of God and the World," p. 251.) 
That it will stand the test of closest scrutiny, we are confident. 
The subject, however, is fraught with difficulties. That the 
normal laws of human generation should be set aside at all 
seems incredible, if not impossible. Here, however, the physio- 
logical fact of Parthenogenesis is suggestive. This word is de- 
rived from parthenos, a virgin, and genesis, production, and 
means "the production of young in some species of plants and 
inferior animals, without previous intercourse with the male." 
We are told that this fact is widespread in the lower orders 
of nature, while it occurs in other orders "occasionally and 
sporadically." The testimony of Professor G. J. Romanes, 
given while he was a reverent agnostic, is worthy of our notice. 
He says: "It has been already stated that both parthenogenesis 
and gemmation are ultimately derived from sexual reproduction. 
It may now be added, on the other hand, that the earlier stages 
of parthenogenesis have been observed to occur sporadically 
in all sub-kingdoms of the Metazoa, including the Vertebrata, 
and even the highest class, the Mammalia. These earlier stages 
consist in spontaneous segmentations of the ovum; so that even 
if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and even if 
such a fact in the human species has been unique, still it would 
not betoken any breach of physiological continuity." ("Darwin 
and After Darwin," p. 119). 1 

1 Apart, however, from this interesting illustration furnished by 
parthenogenesis, a devout mind would encounter no difficulty in 
believing in a Virgin Birth in view of the power of God — all things 
are possible to Him — provided there was a sufficient reason for 
such a departure from the usual laws of generation. The question 
then becomes, in its last analysis, What is the rationality of the 
Virgin Birth? 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 241 

The Christian idea is that in Jesus Christ a Divine Being 
became Incarnate. Now if a Divine Being was to become 
Man, why was the method of a Virgin Birth chosen? A 
Virgin Birth is certainly not essential apparently to an In- 
carnation. The mystery surrounding the genesis of every 
human soul, and the ancient belief in the preexistence of all 
souls seem to preclude a Virgin Birth as essential to an In- 
carnation. Many persons, in fact, claim that an Incarnation 
without a Virgin Birth would be more real and more in- 
telligible; that it would not lower the idea of Divinity to a 
physical basis; that it would not endanger the reality of the 
being's humanity; and that it would not create an unnecessary 
distinction between the natural and the supernatural. In spite 
of this, however, certain reasons do seem to commend the 
method of a Virgin Birth. But before noting these briefly, 
let us advert to a reason sometimes adduced, but which appears 
to be but a broken reed upon which to lean. 

It is said that the Virgin Birth was the necessary condition 
of Jesus' sinlessness (either positive or negative), or freedom 
from original sin. This claim, however, is utterly unconvincing, 
because the taint of evil — whatever it may be — could descend 
through the mother as well as through the father. In fact, 
among the Jews, woman was regarded as particularly weak and 
sinful (Gen. 3; Eccl. 7; I Tim. 2:14). Our escape from this 
possibility, indeed, lies either in the adoption of the Docetic idea, 
that Jesus was born not, ek, "from" the Virgin Mary, but only, 
dia, "through" her, or the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 
Immaculate Conception, which would give us an immaculate 
mother, or the idea that the removal of the human father would 
remove all impure thought and desire, and with it, the sinful 
taint, which, according to this theory apparently, enters with 
the act of generation. Thus a slur is cast upon the divinely 
appointed method of procreation. Again it is not clear that the 
words of the angel: "therefore also that holy thing which shall 
be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (St. Lu. 1 -.35) 
are to be interpreted in an ethical sense. The idea is simply 
that the child being conceived by the power of God is therefore 
especially consecrated and set apart to God. 

While this reason then for the Virgin Birth is uncon- 



242 Jesus' Idea 

vincing, other thoughts are more helpful. For instance, the fact 
of being begotten by a human father and a human mother sug- 
gests a new personality. Jesus, however, preexisted. Conse- 
quently the thought of an Incarnation in a person born of human 
father and mother, while it does not render belief in an In- 
carnation impossible, at least increases our difficulty in believing 
in the fact. Again, Jesus inaugurated a new course for hu- 
manity. He was, indeed, the Second Adam, the founder of a 
new divine-human race. Hence it is reasonable to believe that 
such a dignity might demand a physical miracle as its fitting 
counterpart. Sometimes there is also associated with this con- 
ception the idea that if Jesus had been born of human parentage, 
He would have inherited what we might call partial humanity — 
not human nature in its entirety or totality, which it was neces- 
sary for Him to have in view of His dignity and His task. The 
perplexing question, however, is, How would He receive human 
nature in its totality from Mary? Finally, Jesus was the 
God-Man. Two natures were apparently united in one person. 
Jesus was certainly human, and yet He was palpably more 
than human : He was Divine. How this could be is an insoluble 
mystery. The Virgin Birth, however, helps us to grasp the fact 
more readily than the idea of the union of two natures in a 
man born of human father and human mother. (The line of 
thought here touched upon is presented by E. Griffith- Jones 
in "The Ascent Through Christ," pp. 263-270.) 

In conclusion, we notice again in the matter of the Virgin 
Birth the sense of congruity which has characterized the other 
supernatural features of Christianity. At the same time, it 
must be admitted that the Virgin Birth does not seem as essential 
to the Kingdom of God as the several other supernatural fea- 
tures which have been noted. Christianity would not be very 
seriously impaired for thoughtful minds, even if this supposed 
fact should be disproved. Indeed, however the orthodox 
Christian Creed may be established in this and in other particu- 
lars, we must remember that those who cannot accept the 
Virgin Birth of Jesus, or His metaphysical Sonship, but who 
accept Jesus as the Sovereign of Life — as the Son of God in the 
official and in the ethical senses — and strive to do the Master's 
will, are subjects of the Kingdom of God, and are to be admitted 



The Vicegerent of the Kingdom 243 

within the pale of Jesus' ecclesia. 1 

In failing to see this, the visible Church has made a fatal 
mistake, for the Cause of Christianity is the Kingdom or 
Sovereignty of God — not primarily the Deity of Jesus. Satan, 
however, is an adept in the game of substitution — the outer 
for the inner, the appearance for the reality, faith as an in- 
tellectual virtue instead of an ethical practise, the traditions of 
men in place of the Commandments of God — and he has played 
it long and well even within the sphere of the Christian Church. 
The Satanic fallacy, however, is becoming more and more ap- 
parent as the Spirit of Truth is disclosing the idea and the 
ambition of Jesus to the World. Men are seeing as never be- 
fore that the essence of Christianity is devotion to the Kingdom 
of God and not the acceptance of a Church or a Creed. May 
God speed the day when the voice of Jesus Himself shall be 
heard above the din of ecclesiastical pronunciamentos — however 
true or however false they may be — and His sheep shall hear 
His voice, and there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd — 
substantial unity amid great diversity — a true Catholicity in the 
Idea of the Kingdom of God. 

1 That this generous liberty was accorded at one time is evident 
from Justin Martyr's admission in the Dialogue with Trypho. Ch. 
48:1, 219: "Now assuredly, Trypho, I continued, that this man is 
the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that 
he existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God 
and was born by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved 
that this man is the Christ of God, whoever he be, even if I do 
not prove that he preexisted, and submitted to be born a man of 
like passions with us, having a body according to the Father's will ; 
in this matter alone it is just to say that I have erred, and not 
to deny that he is the Christ, though it should appear that he was 
born man of man, and it is proved that he became Christ by 
election. For there are some, my friends, I said, of our race, who 
admit that he is Christ, while holding him to be man of men ; with 
whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who 
have the same opinion as myself should say so ; since we were 
enjoined by Christ himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but 
those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by himself." 



APPENDIX A 

THE THEME OF JESUS' PREACHING 

"The Kingdom of Heaven" or "The Kingdom of God," 
was the theme of Jesus' preaching and teaching. It was with 
the Gospel of the Kingdom of God that Jesus began His 
public ministry (St. Mark 1:14); it was with instruction in 
the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that He was 
busied during the forty days which intervened between the 
Resurrection and the Ascension (Acts 1:3) ; and it was with 
the command that His apostles go into all the world and 
preach the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus vanished into the 
Heavens (St. Matthew 28:19-20; St. Mark 16:15). The 
Kingdom, indeed, was the beginning, the middle and the end 
of Jesus' preaching. 

To render this assertion indisputable, let us cite proof 
from the Gospels. "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the 
Gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God, and saying, 
The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; re- 
pent ye, and believe the Gospel" (St. Mark 1 :i4, 15). "From 
that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent; for 
the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (St. Matthew 4:17). 
"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, 
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all 
manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the 
people" (St. Matthew 4:23; 9:35). "And He said unto them, 
I must preach the Kingdom of God to other cities also; for 
therefore am I sent. And He preached in the synagogues of 
Galilee" (St. Luke 4:43, 44). "And it came to pass after- 
ward, that He went throughout every city and village, preach- 
ing and showing the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God: and 
the twelve were with Him" (St. Luke 8:1 ; St. Mark 1 =38, 39). 

Not only was the Kingdom the burden of Jesus' preaching: it 
was also the very essence of His commission to the Twelve. 

245 



246 Jesus' Idea 

"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave 
them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 
And he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal 
the sick." "And they departed, and went through the towns, 
preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere. And the people 
when they knew it followed Him; and He received them, and 
spake unto them of the Kingdom of God, and healed them 
that had need of healing." "Jesus said unto Him, Let the 
dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the Kingdom 
of God : And Jesus said unto him, no man, having put his hand 
to the plow and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God" 
(St. Luke 9:1, 6, 11, 60, 62; St. Mark 6:6, 7, 8). "These 
twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go 
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samari- 
tans enter ye not : But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven 
is at hand" (St. Matthew 10:5, 7). Virtually the same com- 
mission was given subsequently to the Seventy: "After these 
things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them 
two by two before His face into every city and place, whither 
he himself would come." "And heal the sick that are therein, 
and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto 
you." "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, 
we do wipe off against you : notwithstanding, be ye sure of this, 
that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you" (St. Luke 
10:1, 9, 11). Jesus also declares: "And this gospel of the 
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all 
nations; and then shall the end come" (St. Matthew 24:14). 

The familiar and very precious intercourse of the Master 
with the disciples on the eve of the Crucifixion, also reveals 
the conception which was uppermost in the mind of Jesus al- 
ways, and ever dearest to His heart: "And I appoint unto you a 
kingdom, as my Father has appointed unto me; that ye may 
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (St. Luke 22:29, 30). 

That the Apostles, after the death of Christ, regarded "the 
Kingdom of God" as the comprehensive and fundamental feature 
of their Lord's teaching, is evident in their preaching. A few 
quotations from "The Acts of the Apostles" will suffice to 
indicate this. "But when they believed Philip preaching the 



Appendix 247 

things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12). 
"And he (Paul) went into the synagogue, and spake boldly 
for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the 
things concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 19:8). "And 
now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone 
preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" 
(Acts 20:25). "And when they had appointed him a day, 
there came many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he ex- 
pounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them 
concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the 
prophets, from morning till evening." "And Paul dwelt two 
whole years in his hired house, and received all that came in 
unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those 
things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, 
no man forbidding him" (Acts 28:23, 31). This emphatic 
testimony of the Book of Acts of the Apostles attests that the 
subject of the Apostolic preaching is in line with the state- 
ment of the third verse of the First Chapter of the Book, 
which reads: "To whom also he showed himself alive after 
his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty 
days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of 
God." We could anticipate no other course of action on the 
part of the Apostles after Jesus had so emphasized the King- 
dom at all times during His life, and had made it the preeminent 
topic of conversation during the great Forty Days. 

We think that these abundant citations from the New Testa- 
ment will convince the unprejudiced reader that the important 
and absorbing topic of Jesus of Nazareth was "The Kingdom 
of God." However this theme may be in the background of 
a present-day preaching, it was undeniably in the very fore- 
ground of Jesus' preaching. 



APPENDIX B 

THE PHRASES, "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN" AND "KINGDOM OF GOD" 

In the New Testament, two expressions were used, appar- 
ently with no distinction between them — "The Kingdom of 
Heaven" and "The Kingdom of God." These expressions, 
while they differ in form, are equivalent in meaning. The 
phrase — "The Kingdom of Heaven" — is peculiar to the Gospel 
of St. Matthew, in which it is used thirty- two times. "The 
Kingdom of God" is the form alone used in the Gospels ac- 
cording to St. Luke, St. Mark and St. John; although it is 
also used interchangeably by St. Matthew in five passages, at 
least — 6:10, 33; 12:28; 21:31, 43. The term, "The Kingdom 
of God," is found fifteen times in St. Mark's Gospel; thirty 
times in the Gospel according to St. Luke, twice in the Gospel 
according to St. John, and seven times in the Book of the Acts 
of the Apostles. Twice in St. Matthew's Gospel occurs the 
expression "The Kingdom of the Father" (St. Matthew 13:43; 
26:29). Jesus also speaks of "My Kingdom" three times (St. 
John 18:36). 

It is considered highly probable that "The Kingdom of 
God" was a current expression among the Jews of Our Lord's 
time, because of the very prevalence and the great popu- 
larity of the conception which it embodied. Certain New 
Testament passages seem to imply its common use in the speech 
of the people. For example, St. Mark 15:43 reads: "Joseph 
of Arimathea, an honorable counselor, which also waited 
for the Kingdom of God, came, and went boldly unto Pilate, 
and craved the body of Jesus." "And as they heard these things, 
he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, 
and because they thought that the Kingdom of God should 
immediately appear" It may be also, that in the question of 
the Apostles, recorded in Acts 1 :6 — "Lord, wilt thou at this 
time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?" — we have an indi- 

248 



Appendix 249 

cation of the popular usage. St. Luke 14:15 is significant, 
too : — "And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard 
these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread 
in the kingdom of God." Then again, there was in common 
use a prayer called the "Kaddish." This prayer was written in 
Aramaic, and dates far back into antiquity. The concluding 
petition is: "And may He (God) set up His Kingdom in your 
life-time, and in your days, and in the life-time of the whole 
house of Israel, (yea) speedily, and in a time that is near." 

The phrase, "Kingdom of Heaven," was also a common 
expression in Rabbinical circles. It occurs repeatedly in the 
Talmud, and is thought by some to have been the form em- 
ployed by Our Lord in His ordinary preaching, but not exclu- 
sively so, and to have been retained by St. Matthew in His Gos- 
pel, addressed, as it was, primarily to Jewish readers. While 
it was translated into the equivalent expression, "The Kingdom 
of God," by St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, because they 
deemed that expression best suited to the understanding of the 
Gentile readers. It is certain, however, that the phrase, "The 
Kingdom of Heaven," was a specifically Jewish one, and that 
it was not so easily intelligible to the Gentile world as the kin- 
dred expression, "The Kingdom of God." Besides, the way had 
been prepared for such a usage as that of St. Mark, St. Luke, 
and St. John, in the example of the Greek Bible, or Septuagint, 
which was preeminently the Bible of the Gentile nations, and 
which nowhere speaks of "The Kingdom of Heaven," but every- 
where and only of "The Kingdom of God." It is also an as- 
sured fact that "heaven" was a common metonymy for "God" 
in the language of the Jewish people. For confirmation of the 
use of the term "heaven" in place of the word "God," the read- 
er may consult a number of New Testament passages, notably 
St. Mark 10:21; St. Luke 10:20; 12:33. This fact leads us 
to believe it quite probable that both forms were used by Our 
Lord Himself; while it relieves St. Matthew of any inexplicable 
singularity in his constant use of the phrase, "The Kingdom of 
Heaven." 



APPENDIX C 

VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE KINGDOM, 

Various definitions of the Kingdom of God have been giv- 
en, and it may be well to enumerate some of the more recent 
ones. To the Jew, the Kingdom of God corresponded to the 
well-known phrase, malekoth hasshamaytm, which was used 
generally, as Meyer tells us, in the sense of the ethical rule of 
God, and "also in the essentially historical meaning of the rule 
of God, brought to its consummation by the Messiah." To the 
Jew, the phrase signified always — the Kingdom of the Messiah. 
Modern students, however, have defined it variously. Eder- 
sheim writes: "An analysis of 119 passages in the New Testa- 
ment where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it 
means the rule of God, which was manifested in and through 
Christ; is apparent in the Church; gradually develops amidst 
hindrances; is triumphant at the second coming of Christ (the 
end) ; and, finally, perfected in the world to come." Dr. Horton 
gives the following definition, which is endorsed also by Dr. 
Sanday : "The world of invisible laws by which God is ruling 
and blessing His creatures." The late Professor Stevens says: 
"The Kingdom of God is the rule of God in human hearts and 
lives: it is so much of the world of human thought and action 
as makes the will of God its laws" ("The Teaching of Jesus," 
p. 69). Professor Bruce has it: "The reign of divine love 
exercised by God in His grace over human hearts believing 
in His love, and constrained thereby to yield Him grateful 
affection and devoted service" ("The Kingdom of God," p. 46). 
Dr. Horton writes: "The idea is very simple, but every- 
thing is involved in it. The sincere and practical recognition 
that God is sovereign, the complete inward acceptance of His 
sovereignty, the whole of life which results from this recogni- 
tion and this acceptance — that is the Kingdom of Heaven" 
("Teaching of Jesus," p. 35). By Professor Matthews, the 

250 



Appendix 251 

Kingdom is thus defined: "By the Kingdom of God, Jesus 
meant an ideal (though progressively approximated) social or- 
der, in which the relation of men to God is that of sons, and, 
therefore, to each other, that of brothers" ("The Social Teach- 
ing of Jesus," p. 54). Professor Wendt puts the matter con- 
cisely: "The idea of a divine dispensation under which God 
would bestow His full salvation upon a society of men, who, 
on their part, should fulfil His will in true righteousness" 
("Teaching of Jesus," Vol. I, p. 175). Harnack, probably the 
most brilliant of living theological students, writes: "True, the 
Kingdom of God is the rule of God, but it is the rule of the 
holy God in the hearts of individuals: it is God Himself in His 
power" ("What is Christianity?" p. 56). Professor Dalman 
says, in speaking of Jesus' idea of the Kingdom : "For Him 
the sovereignty of God meant the divine power, which from 
the present onwards with continuous progress, effectuates the 
renovation of the world, but also the renovated world into 
whose domain mankind will one day enter, which is even now 
being offered, and, therefore, can be appropriated and received 
as a blessing" ("The Words of Jesus," p. 137). 

All of these definitions are interesting, and, while they seem 
to differ widely upon a cursory reading, all are found to con- 
verge to one point, and to emphasize obedience and submission 
to the rule or authority of God. 



APPENDIX D 

THE INSTITUTION OF THE MONARCHY 

In our interpretation of the institution of the Monarchy, 
we must bear in mind that in the First Book of Samuel, as in 
the earlier Books of the Bible, "two distinct strands of narra- 
tive are woven together," the one, older and historically more 
valuable; the other, later and colored by the prophetical spirit. 
According to the earlier narrative, the distinct achievement of 
the seer, Samuel, was the selection and anointing of the king, 
while the later account represents him as resentful of Israels' 
request, and the bitter opponent of her desire. It has been sig- 
nificantly remarked that, "The language in which he condemns 
it (the request), Ch. 8, is almost a literal description of the 
abuses of the royal prerogative under such kings as Solomon and 
Aliah." This narrative points to a time when the kingship, 
in view of its oppression and unrighteousness, had become thor- 
oughly odious to the prophets, while their minds were full of 
the vision of the ideal theocracy, or Kingdom of God. Hence, 
the step taken in the age of Samuel, seemed to them a sad 
misstep. In reality, it was a great and essential step forward 
in the developing plan of God. To hold that the asking for 
a king, a request necessary in the logical order of events, and 
undoubtedly making for the betterment of the nation, is a back- 
ward step, a retrogression or lapse, is to be guilty of a "fla- 
grant reversal of history." To identify the "theocracy" with 
the period prior to the Monarchy, narrows the term in a lament- 
able way. A far truer view of the theocracy interprets it as a 
spiritual idea, independent in its expression or embodiment of 
any specific or stereotyped form of any age, and condition, or 
any civilization. The theocracy, or rule of God, was the theoc- 
racy, whether under the leadership of Moses, or the Judges, 
or the King of the Monarchical era, or the Priests of the Post 
Exilic period. To have gotten rid of God as King would have 
been disloyalty; simply to change the manner of God's rule, as 
King involved no disloyalty. 

252 



APPENDIX E 

THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL 

The Book of Daniel is an Apocalypse: the first well-de- 
veloped fruit of Apocalyptic Literature. The object of the 
Apocalypse is to uncover, or to lay open what has been veiled 
or covered up ; such, indeed, is the meaning of the word. Apoc- 
alyptic Literature was busied with a question of great im- 
portance. It was a firm conviction of the Jewish mind that, 
inasmuch as God was a righteous God, He would unfailingly 
bestow temporal blessings and prosperity upon His servants on 
the earth. This seemed to be an emphatic teaching of the 
Law, and it had been the burden of many prophetic utter- 
ances. Precept, however, did not always accord with practise. 
As a matter of fact, the experiences of life offered a painful, 
but undeniable, contradiction to their cherished belief. Diffi- 
culties arose, and the actual demanded an apologist. Especially 
was this the case after the Exile. At no time had the law been 
more thoroughly expounded, at no time were the people more 
true to their monotheistic faith, and more resolute in their 
antagonism to the heathen; yet prosperity did not come. In 
consequence, serious questioning arose. How could the difficulty 
be resolved? And this questioning related not only to the 
nation as a whole, but also to the individuals of whom the 
nation was composed. The earlier Old Testament prophecy 
had portrayed the vindication and restoration of Israel as a 
nation ; but the later years of the national life found the claims 
of the individual hovering large upon the horizon, and pressing 
for earnest consideration. Some scheme of the Divine opera- 
tion must be found which would take due account of these 
claims of the individual. Hence, in addition to the idea of the 
national restoration of Israel, there arose the idea of the resur- 
rection of the righteous individual. Thus the task of Apoc- 
alyptic Literature was to disclose what had been hidden 

253 



254 Jesus' Idea 

from man, and to justify the ways of God to men. "Apocalyp- 
tic Literature, therefore, strove to show that, in respect alike 
of the nation and of the individual, the righteousness of God 
would be fully vindicated; and, in order to justify its contention, 
it sketched in outline the history of the world, and of mankind, 
the origin of evil, and its course, and the final consummation of 
all things, and thus, in fact, it presented a Semitic philosophy 
of religion." The answer of this literature to Israel's grave 
questioning, was: The righteous nation will yet possess the 
earth in the Messianic Kingdom, and the righteous individual, 
though dead, will receive the award of his good works in the 
resurrection to honor and happiness, either in the earthly or 
the heavenly kingdom of the Messiah. 

For his efficacy, the Apocalyptist — unlike the early prophet 
who trusted to the spoken word — placed his faith in the writ- 
ten form. And while the prophet speaks chiefly to his own age, 
and deals with the future only as it had its roots in the present, 
seeking to arouse his countrymen to action, the Apocalyptist 
is a profound pessimist so far as the present is concerned, looks 
upon present conditions as irretrievably bad, and has faith only 
in the future. Perhaps, because of this, and certainly to gain 
an increased authority for his writings, he does not write in 
his own name, but assumes a false name, the name of some one 
of Israel's many ancient worthies. He strives to write as 
though he lived in his day, and combining events of the past 
with events of the present, depicts an onward movement of his- 
tory which issues in the exaltation of Israel. To his own 
time, he prophesies usually with precision; beyond his own age, 
we have the play of the prophetic imagination, although a claim 
to supernatural revelations is made on behalf of those whose 
names are attached to the writings. Fantastic imagery and 
strange symbolism constitute the literary form of this type of 
literature. These are seemingly enigmatical, but to the inter- 
ested readers of that day they were commonly intelligible. Such 
strange literary devices, indeed, obviated the dangers attendant 
upon open speech, while in no way blinding those who were 
in the secret of the production. 

For more than two centuries before Christ, and until the 
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., this type of literature 
molded the political and religious ideas and ideals of the Jews. 



Appendix 255 

It is utterly impossible to appreciate the New Testament with- 
out some idea of the character and content of the Apocalyptic 
Literature. Beginning with the Book of Daniel, which has 
been styled the first Apocalypse, this literature prepared the 
popular mind either to find its full satisfaction in the Person 
and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or to persist in those 
tendencies which led to His crucifixion, and eventually, in mad 
antagonism to the imperial power of Rome, to the destruction 
of the Jewish nation itself. The voice of prophecy had long 
been silent; in its stead, the voice of the scribe, and the scribal 
school was heard, expounding the law; it was this voice and 
this teaching, which made possible, and necessitated the rise of 
the Apocalyptic Literature. The very early beginnings of this 
type of literature may be traced in the writings of Ezekiel and 
Zechariah, but it was to receive full and complete illustration 
in the Book of Daniel. 

This Book, according to the traditional view of its author- 
ship, which the Church inherited from the Jewish synagogue, 
is held to have been written by the Daniel who is at once its 
hero and its author. This view predominated throughout the 
centuries, questioned, however, now and again, by some op- 
ponent of Christianity, or some free-thinker. The very source 
of opposition to the traditional view disinclined the Church to 
listen to the arguments for their contention. In compara- 
tively recent years, however, a mass of incontrovertible evi- 
dence has caused modern scholarship, with singular unanimity, 
to regard the Book as the literary production of some ardent 
Jew who lived in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and who, 
for reasons of his own, wrote under the name Daniel. In 
writing under an assumed name, he followed the well-estab- 
lished usage of his age, employing a literary form with which 
all were familiar. Such apparent falsity may impress us as 
unpardonable; we must remember, however, to judge the author 
by the standards of his own age, not by those of our time. 
Judged by these, his act was most natural and seemly. It was 
a common custom of Jewish writers, both in the Old Testa- 
ment and in the Extra-Canonical Literature, to represent mes- 
sages of their day as having been delivered by the noble spirits 
of the past. Such a statement as the following is conservative 
and true: "Thus the law of Deuteronomy is given as though 



256 Jesus' Idea 

spoken by Moses in the land of Moab, and the legislation of C. 
as though revealed to Moses in the wilderness. The Book of 
Ecclesiastes is written as the experience of Solomon. While in 
2nd Esther, Baruch, the Book of Enoch, and the Jewish 
Apocalypses generally, this method of composition is abun- 
dantly illustrated, and was evidently a favorite one with the 
devout and pious of the centuries immediately preceding and 
following Christ." Of this custom Monsieur Renan aptly 
remarks: "Honesty and imposture are words which, in our 
rigid consciences, are opposed as two irreconcilable terms. In 
the East they are connected by a thousand subtle links and 
windings. The authors of the Apocryphal books (of "Daniel" 
and of "Enoch" for instance), men highly exalted, in order to 
aid their cause, committed, without a shadow of scruple, an 
act which we should term a fraud. The literal truth has little 
value to the Oriental; he sees everything through the medium 
of his ideas, his interests, and his passions" ("La Vie de Jesus," 
p. 219). 

In the Book of Daniel, then, we have not only a signal 
illustration of the Apocalyptic Literature, but also of the habit 
of the Ancients in writing pseudonymously. Who Daniel was 
it is impossible to ascertain; whether the character is wholly 
imaginary, or the creation of an author who clothed a per- 
sonality of the Exilic Age, or some other age, with glowing tra- 
dition, or supposititious virtues, one cannot determine. How- 
ever, this question in no wise affects the value of the literary 
production. Some Jew, conscious that he understood the sig- 
nificance of the past and of the present, and confident that, in 
the Providence of God, he had been enlightened as to the 
future, proceeds in Apocalyptic fashion to set forth his mes- 
sage for the admonition and consolation of his age. His aim 
is not that of the historian: the aim is to exhort and to en- 
courage. 



APPENDIX F 



THE MEANING OF ECCLESIA 



In classical Greek eKKKrjo-la denoted the body of free citizens 
in a Greek city to whom was intrusted the transaction of public 
affairs, and who were summoned to the assembly by a herald. 
Hence kKKXrjata denoted an assembly of free citizens who 
were "called out" or elected from a larger population. Even 
in the New Testament we find a kindred — or, more correctly, 
a less technical — usage of the word. When the Ephesian popu- 
lace, incited to riot against the Christians by the denunciations 
of the silversmith Demetrius, sought to end the influence of 
the apostle Paul and his companions, Gaius and Aristarchus, 
the assemblage is described by the word €kk \%a (Acts 19:32, 

39, 4i). 

We must not dwell, however, upon the classical usage; for 
the word does not come to us in the New Testament at first 
hand from that source. Valuable and eminently worthy of 
Christian usage as e/c/cX^o-ia is in its classical sense, and admir- 
ably adapted from a consideration of its component parts — en 
"from" or "out of," and /caXeco to "call" — to designate the 
Christian assembly as the elect or called of God from the 
larger population of the world, we must not fail to take into 
account the use of the word in the Septuagint. When, to satisfy 
the needs of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt, the Old Testament 
was translated from the original Hebrew, which was at best a 
provincial tongue, into the cosmopolitan language of Greece, 
some word had to be found to take the place of the Hebrew 

?i}\> } or "congregation." The word selected was eKKXrjata' 
In the Hebrew Bible two words are used to signify a com- 
munity or congregation — TV1V. and S"Jj5. Used substantially 
in the same sense, the choice of one or the other is determined 
by no difference in meaning, but rather by the taste of the 

257 



258 Jesus' Idea 

author. rny is, however, the older term, and signified any 

assembly or congregation, while ?ng came to denote the specific 
community or assembly of Israel. For example, in Judg. 14:8 
•TJJJ is used of a swarm of bees, and in Ps. 68, of a "multitude of 
bulls"; yet elsewhere in the Psalms the two words are found 
without difference in meaning, and denote the "congregation of 

Israel." Studying ?*][> we find that it is used in the Old 
Testament to designate an assembly summoned for a specific 
purpose (I Kings 8:65), or one which met on some festal occa- 
sion (Deut. 23:1); but far more frequently does it denote 
"the community of Israel collectively regarded as a congrega- 
tion" (Selbie), i. e., the national assembly, "the whole con- 
gregation of Israel regarded in its entirety as the people of 
God" (J. Armitage Robinson), as in Deut. 18:16 and Judg. 
21 :8. A New Testament echo of this usage is found in the 
speech of Stephen (Acts 7:38) and in Heb. 2:12. 

Now when the Septuagint version of the Scriptures was 
in the making, some Greek words were needed as the equiv- 
alents of <Tiy and ?ng and we notice that the Greek avvayuyr} 

represents the Hebrew ^"JV, while eKK\rjaia represents /HJ5. 
This is the usual, but not the universal rule. Sometimes 
(Tvvayuyr) is used for 7rjjJ, but simply for the sake of uni- 
formity in the written Greek. Schurer tells us that in the 
later Judaism a difference in meaning arose, avvaycayr} being 
used "of the actual congregation in any one place," while 
kiuckriffla designated the ideal, "the assembly of those called by 
God to salvation"; and Selbie rightly remarks: "It is easy 
to see how, on this account, kiackr)(Fta displaced avvayooyr) in 
Christian circles." Such, briefly, is the history of the words. 
Excursions of this kind into the fundamental meaning and 
usage of words may to the superficial appear unnecessary and 
trying, but in reality they are absolutely essential if we would 
entertain adequate and justifiable conceptions. 

^KKkqala, then, confronts us in the New Testament freighted 
with the classical usage and the Hebrew usage. Yet both 
usages manifestly have points of contact; the Greek as- 
sembly and the Israelitish congregation have in common certain 



Appendix 259 

fundamental features. The congregation of Israel was assur- 
edly the called, or the elect of God: called from the many 
nations to benefit the many. There is an appropriateness in 
the word, from whatever point we view it, which makes its 
adoption to denote the church of Jesus both impressive and 
deeply suggestive. It must be remembered, however, that 
Jesus in all probability spoke and taught in Aramaic. While 
a large number of Greek words had been introduced into the 
Hebrew and the Aramaic of His day, this by no means proves 
that the common people of Palestine possessed an adequate 
knowledge of Greek. The fact seems to be that the lower 
classes had either no knowledge, or at most a superficial 
knowledge, of Greek, while the higher or educated classes 
were probably well-acquainted with the language. It is only 
reasonable, therefore, to assume that the language of Jesus was 
Aramaic. The question then arises as to what was the word 
used by Jesus in this connection, and what was its meaning. 

It is perhaps impossible to answer this question with preci- 
sion. Certain facts, however, would seem to shed some light 
at least upon the subject. We have seen that the Septuagint 

puts vwayuiyri for iT$, and usually eKKKrjaia for PHj?; also 
that in the Old Testament there was no substantial distinc- 
tion in meaning between the two. When the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures were used in the services of the synagogue, it was found 
necessary to follow their reading by an oral "targum" — a para- 
phrase, or free translation, into Aramaic, the current language 
of the people. These "targums" at a later time were reduced 
to writing. Now, in the targums we find nfiB03 used for 

rn# and generally n?rn for ?ft\>. It is quite probable that 
Jesus used one of these words. Which word the Master 
selected it is, of course, impossible now to determine. The 
choice of one or the other, however, in no wise affects the idea 
entertained by Jesus, inasmuch as both words designate the 
same thing — the "congregation of Israel." 

The selection, then, of eKKKrjffia, when the Aramaic say- 
ings of Jesus were translated into Greek for Gentile use, 
would appear most natural under the existing circumstances. 
^vvayuyr] had come to have distinctly Jewish associations, 
which unfitted it for Christian usage, while eKKKrjata, from 



260 Jesus' Idea 

its use in the Septuagint — and perhaps from its consonance 
with Greek ideas — was most happily adapted to express the 
preeminent idea of the Christian church as the called of God. 

The word, indeed, touched, in vital manner, both the 
Gentile and the Jewish world. It would appeal to both with 
subtle power. And especially was the choice of kiacXrjaia 
natural, in view of the fact that already this term had become 
widely established as a description of the local organizations 
of the Christians. Hence kKKKrjata was used to translate 
the Aramaic word which Jesus Himself had employed to denote 
His church. 

The word used, then, suggests to our mind the ancient 
congregation of Israel, if we think of the Hebrew significance; 
and an assembly of free men called out of a larger population 
by a herald, if we contemplate the Greek significance of the 
term. There is much food for thought in the latter. One is 
tempted to dwell upon the conception of the church as an 
assemblage of free men — free from the curse and slavery of 
sin, free as the birds of the air, free because they serve God 
"whose service is perfect freedom"; an assemblage summoned 
from the four corners of the earth by the mighty voice of 
Jesus which has sounded, and is sounding down the ages; 
an assemblage summoned to transact the business of the world, 
for such is the mission of the church — to bring man, the world, 
and human affairs, into harmony with the all-holy and sovereign 
will of God; and Christ conceived of the Kingdom of God 
itself as the "universal rule of Christian principles." Such 
is the temptation. 

But we must resist it, and dwell rather upon the primary 
and fundamental thought of Jesus as expressed in the word 
eKKKfjam, which is derived from the Hebrew and not from the 
Greek source. 



APPENDIX G 



THE PRIMACY OF PETER 



When first brought into contact with Jesus, Peter had been 
thus addressed: "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou 
shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone? 
(St. Jn. 1:42.) His confession at length proved the aptness 
of Jesus' characterization, for immediately after the confession 
the Master declared: "I say unto thee that thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (St. Mt. 16:18- 
19). Jesus, indeed, had read Peter aright. He had seen 
the native capabilities of the man. Vacillating, and unstable 
because he lacked that which alone could arrest his being and 
confer the power of tremendous steadfastness, he yet possessed 
the quality of splendid reverence, and an ultimately impregnable 
devotion combined with a noble aggressiveness. Jesus, of 
course, did not wish to build his brotherhood upon an insecure 
foundation; he desired permanency. At length he has the 
Rock in the person of St. Peter in view of his deliberate 
confession. 1 

1 The proper name, Trtrpos, signified "a stone, or rock, or 
ledge or cliff." It was "used metaphorically, of a soul hard and 
unyielding and so resembling a rock" (Thayer), trirpa meant also 
a rock, ledge or cliff, and was also used to describe "a man 
like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul." In 
classical Greek, the distinction is generally observed between trtrpa, 
the massive rock, and irtrpos, a detached but large fragment. 
Both of these words are used in the passage quoted above ; irtrpos 
being first, and irtrpa second, Both of these terms, however, 
would be represented in the Aramaic which Jesus spoke by the 
same word NfP ? Cephas. 

261 



262 Jesus' Idea 

The corner-stone, at least, is at hand upon which to erect 
His eKKXyjata. 1 

Jesus thus gives St. Peter the primacy among the Apostles. 
It was his, indeed, by right of his confession. 2 

Further he says, "I will give unto thee the keys of the 
Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven." The idea here is easily 
decipherable. Since the keeper of the keys has the power to 
open and to shut, the word is figuratively used in the New 
Testament to denote power and authority of various kinds. 
"The key was an Oriental symbol of authority. When a scribe 
was inducted into his office, he was given a key, as a symbol 
of his authority to open the treasury of divine truth contained 
in the law" (cf. St. Lu. 11:52 and St. Mt. 23:13). A key, 
indeed, always and primarily unlocks something. Jesus, in the 
figurative language of the Orient, was then holding the keys 
of the Kingdom of Heaven. He had sought assiduously to 
unlock the Kingdom to men. But now as the threatening 
clouds of Jewish hatred and persecution grew more dense, 
he saw that preparation for the future must be made. The 
necessity was becoming pressing. Peter had just shown an 
insight into His purposes that was born of Heaven; what 

1 "The community of believers" in the New Testament, according 
to a common figure, is- represented as a building (I Cor. 3:10; Eph. 
2:19; Gal. 2:9; I Pet. 2:4). 

2 Peter's name is always placed first in the lists of the Apostles in 
the New Testament ; he is also represented in many passages as 
exercising leadership (Acts. 15:7; 2:14; Gal. 1:18; 2:7, 8). This, 
however, does not involve the inference as to the supremacy of 
St. Peter and his successors, which the Church of Rome draws 
from it. In fact, there is nothing about successors here. ^ The 
Roman Catholic belief is purely inferential. Yet, the Roman infer- 
ence is quite as valid as the Anglican inference, based upon the 
wording of the Apostolic Commission, that the Spirit of Christ 
will be with the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the 
Church, until the end of time. The successors of Peter and of 
the Apostles are, of course, not lineal but spiritual. They stand 
at wash-tubs and drive teams as well as sit upon Papal and Episcopal 
thrones. Some, indeed, of the fancied successors of St. Peter have 
been the "rocks" upon which the Church has gone to pieces, while 
only by the greatest stretch of the imagination, and the exercise 
of the extremest courtesy, can many bishops of the past and of the 
present be accounted in any way successors of the Apostles. 



Appendix 263 

could be more fitting, then, than that he, after Him, should hold 
the keys ? * 

Some one in the future must become the Apostle of the 
Kingdom. Why not Peter? Hence we hear the words: "I 
will (notice the future tense) give unto thee the keys of the 
Kingdom." Jesus held them now, but Peter would hold them 
shortly. The first to understand would be first to make others 
understand. "The Acts of the Apostles" itself is the best com- 
mentary upon this passage. There we see St. Peter holding the 
keys. Especially in admitting Cornelius, the Roman Cen- 
turion, did he turn the key which unlocked the door of Jew- 
ish exclusivism and admitted the Gentile world into the King- 
dom of God. 2 

The thought expressed by the words "binding and loosing" 
is "similar to that associated with the figure of the keeper of 
the keys." The sense is probably that of general supervision 
and indisputable authority. The terms themselves "are the 
technical forms for the verdict of a Jewish doctor of the Law 
who pronounced something as 'bound,' i. e., forbidden, or as 
'loosed,' i. e., permitted; not, of course, in virtue of his own 
absolute authority, but in conformity with his knowledge of 
the oral law." 3 

Interpreted strictly here, they would mean that St. Peter, 
by virtue of his insight and knowledge of Jesus' oral teaching, 
would "be able to give an authoritative decision in regard to 
what the adherents of the theocracy may do, and may not 
do." Peter would unfold, in fact, those spiritual principles 
which should henceforth more and more govern mankind. This 
power of binding and loosing was subsequently conferred, how- 
ever, upon the Apostles collectively, as we shall see (St. Mt. 

1 In inaugurating a movement to-day, the first to grasp the idea, 
and to enter into the spirit of the affair, would be called the founda- 
tion stone, and, all things being equal, because of his ability and 
insight, would assume or be forced into leadership. 

2 Isa. 22:15 ff. gives an Old Testament illustration of the powers 
of the keys. Shebna "is comptroller of the household, to whom 
the management of all the King's domestic concerns is entrusted." 
See also Rev. 3 :y ff. 

3 "The wise men, or rabbis, had, in virtue of their ordination, the 
power of deciding disputes relating to the Law." Encl. Bib., Vol. 
I, P- 574- 



264 Jesus' Idea 

18), where "the special application of their authority is made 
in respect of the discipline of the community." In the same 
sense, the words of Jesus spoken to the Apostles after the 
Resurrection must be interpreted : "Whosesoever sins ye remit, 
they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained" (St. Jn. 20:23). Dalman aptly says: "For 
exclusion from the community on account of some offense in- 
cludes the 'retaining' of the sins; the readmission of the sinner 
includes the 'remission' of his sins" (see "Words of Jesus," 
pp. 211-217). 



APPENDIX H 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS 

Quite early in His teaching, Jesus had indicated that death 
would be His ultimate fate: "The days will come when the 
bridegroom will be taken away" (St. Mk. 2:20). ("Taken 
away," &7rap0fl, has the idea of a violent removal from the 
disciples.) This reference was vague, indeed, but disquieting. 
Disturbing also was the declaration, "I came to cast fire 
on the earth, and what will I, if it is already kindled? But 
I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened 
till it be accomplished" (St. Lu. 12:49-50). More pronounced 
and saddening, however, were the words spoken immediately 
after St. Peter's confession of His Messiahship : "And He 
began to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many 
things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and 
the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (St. 
Mk. 8:31 ; St. Mt. 16:21 ; St. Lu. 9:22). In this incident we 
are reminded of the line of Messianic development revealed 
in the Old Testament: the Kingdom of God, the King, the 
Suffering Messiah, the Crown through Suffering. Until this 
time Jesus had emphasized the Kingdom; St. Peter acknowl- 
edged Him the Messianic King; Jesus immediately announced 
the Cross, and the victory through the Cross. Such a con- 
ception outraged the ideas of St. Peter, who protested: "Be 
it far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee." . . . 
Jesus, however, replied that suffering and death was the God- 
appointed path; and that not only must He walk in this way, 
but His disciples also: "Whosoever will come after me, let him 
deny himself (renounce self), and take up his cross, and follow 
me" (St. Mk. 8:34). In other words, along the pathway of 
sacrifice and service could the Kingdom of God alone be es- 
tablished and extended (vs. 35). Calvary itself was but the 
climax of a life of sacrifice: the outward culmination of a life- 

265 



266 Jesus' Idea 

long spiritual crucifixion ; the prelude to many lesser Calvaries. 

More significant, however, is the utterance of Jesus when 
James and John requested to sit, one on His right hand and 
the other on His left, in His Kingdom. Asking whether they 
were able to drink His cup of suffering, and to experience His 
baptism of blood, He charged them to fling away ambition: 
"Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the 
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise au- 
thority over them. But it is not so among you : but whosoever 
would become great among you, shall be servant of all. For 
verily the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (St. Mk. 
10:42-45; St. Mt. 20:25-28). Here Jesus speaks of His life 
and death as one of service and of sacrifice, which frees many 
from an oppressive thraldom. Turning to the Fourth Gospel, 
we read: "I am the good Shepherd; the good shepherd giveth 
his life for the sheep" (St. Jn. 10:11). Jesus also speaks of 
laying down His life for His friends (15:13). Even more 
remarkable are the words, so significant of the value of His 
death : "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat 
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it 
bringeth forth much fruit" (12:24). "I, if I be lifted up from 
the earth, will draw all men unto me" (12:32). St. Luke 
also tells us that after the Resurrection Jesus said to the 
disciples: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the 
prophets have spoken : Ought not Christ to have suffered these 
things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses 
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the 
Scriptures the things concerning himself" (24:25-27). Later 
He said: "These are the words which I spake unto you, while 
I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which 
were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in 
the psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their under- 
standing, that they might understand the scriptures, and said 
unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (24:44-47). 

These quotations do not exhaust the passages relating to the 
value of Christ's death, but they suffice to show its importance. 



Appendix 267 

Jesus' own conviction in regard to His death was along these 
lines. ( 1 ) His loyalty to Truth, and His fearless exposure of 
Pharisaic religion would lead inevitably to a violent death at 
the hands of the leaders of the nation. (2) This, however, 
was the God-appointed path, analogous to that trodden by the 
prophets, essential to the establishment of the Kingdom, and 
voluntarily accepted by Jesus. (3) This course, however, 
would lead to vast benefit to many, being the means of their 
delivery from the slavery of sin. To such an end, He lived; 
for such an end, He would die. His death and His life — the 
two are to be united — would ransom many. How this ransom 
would be effected, and why it must be effected, Jesus did not 
disclose. That His life and death are effective to this end, the 
experience of thousands attests. Possibly no specific ways and 
reasons were present even to the mind of the Master. The 
great fact He stated, leaving humanity to experience its bless- 
ings, and to translate it into thought as best it could. All 
attempts to explain the fact may be helpful, but none can be 
entirely satisfactory, for the fact defies human comprehension. 
Jesus, then, was a supreme sacrifice, whether in life or in death, 
sacrifice of self to God's obedience. To interpret His sacrifice 
in the sense of the Jewish sacrificial system, is unworthy. Even 
the prophets had detected that God desired only the sacrifice 
of the inner life. This sacrifice Jesus made; and this had 
broken the power of Satan, and set humanity upon a new 
course. The word "ransom" with Jesus was untechnical — a 
term of poetic and mystic meaning. It represented a sum- 
total : the effect of His personality, His career, and His work. 1 

1 The Greek — \irpov — ransom, may have two Hebrew equiva- 
lents, and correspond in sense to their meaning. The first is 

iTjy or pw, which suggests "the money payments required under 

the Law to secure the release of persons from slavery" (Ex. 21 :8, 
Lev. 25:47-49). The second is 13111 (literally, a "covering") used 

in the sense of a "propitiatory gift" — "restricted, however, by usage 
to a gift offered as a satisfaction for a life; it may denote the 
ransom paid by an offender either to man (Ex. 21 130, Nu. 35:30-32, 
Ps. 6:35), or to God (Ex. 30:12, Ps. 49:7) in order to save the 
life which he has forfeited by his wrongdoing." 



APPENDIX I 

THE POSSIBILITY, THE PROBABILITY AND THE CREDIBILITY OF 

MIRACLES 

The fallacious idea of nature, so popular to-day, as a hard 
and fast working of invariable laws which brook no interrup- 
tion or interference, was not entertained by Jesus. The con- 
ception "that nothing happens in nature which is in contradic- 
tion with its universal laws," and that nature, apart from 
God, includes all that is — hence a miracle cannot be — was far 
from Jesus' thought. It was true that nature did proceed in 
an orderly manner; the natural world was cosmos, not chaos; 
yet God was not fettered to the accustomed modes of action. 
"Nature is, indeed, governed by law and not by caprice: that 
we know and are assured of. But such a formula does not 
settle the matter. A wise and prudent man's life is also gov- 
erned by law and not by caprice, and yet the intervention of his 
moral reason, of his power of choice, disturbs from time to 
time the semblance of uniformity in his conduct. For him the 
same physical antecedents do not always issue in the same physi- 
cal consequences, because moral considerations — non-physical 
motives — may sway him now in this direction, and now in that. 
Thus in the case of man, who is a part, and an important part, 
of nature, the rule of uniformity does not hold absolutely. 
And when we remember that the Divine Will must be, at the 
least, as independent of physical law as is man's will, we see 
no ground for regarding the 'Uniformity of Nature' as a 
constitutive principle of the Cosmos. It is nothing more than a 
convenient way of saying that God's laws are general laws; 
that He does not depart from the usual method of His rule 
without the gravest reasons for intervention." (Art. "Nature," 

P- 495); 

Again, Jesus would not be troubled with the objection 
raised to-day, that such departures from the usual methods of 

268 



Appendix 269 

action would involve a loss of prestige on the part of Deity, 
inasmuch as the necessity for such interferences impugned the 
Divine Wisdom. This seems, indeed, a plausible argument. 
We must remember, however, that God in the beginning created 
man a free agent, — capable of choice. This action certainly 
did not impugn the wisdom of God. Hence, if man was unwise 
enough to use his liberty in making a wrong choice, and conse- 
quently found himself in hopeless entanglements, incapable of 
giving himself entire relief, no matter how assiduously he sought 
to accommodate himself to the natural order, and God was the 
Father-God, as Jesus conceived that He was, what could be 
more fitting than that God should bring into play unusual 
means and extraordinary power to relieve the fatal condition 
of His beloved child ? That this was the condition of mankind 
we have had full opportunity to see; that this was the course 
adopted by God, we shall soon see. 

Men, however, are often antagonized by the idea of any 
break occurring in the established order of nature; hence ex- 
planations of miracles are often adduced, which seek to miti- 
gate the rigors of this antagonism. The Duke of Argyll, for 
instance, writes in his "Reign of Law": "Miracles may be 
wrought by the selection and use of laws of which man knows 
and can know nothing, and which, if he did know, he could not 
employ" (p. 16). Too great stress, however, must not be 
placed upon nature's accustomed order, for nature itself pre- 
sents certain inexplicable breaks : for example, the step from the 
inorganic to the organic, and from consciousness to self-con- 
sciousness. "Nature's order and continuity, indeed, is simply 
a generalization from observed phenomena, and of use in scien- 
tific investigation. At the same time, it must be admitted that 
miracles are not necessarily to be thought of as violations of 
physical law. 'Physical Law,' indeed, in its entirety, we do 
not know. There may be many combinations of physical forces 
known to the Creator, which will produce what we call mira- 
cles, and which are now entirely beyond our ken. Huxley 
wrote very wisely: 'If a dead man did come to life, the fact 
would be evidence, not that any law of nature had been vio- 
lated, but that those laws, even when they express the results 
of a very long and uniform experience, are necessarily based on 
incomplete knowledge, and are to be held only on grounds of 



270 Jesus' Idea 

more or less justifiable expectation.' ,: He also admits the pos- 
sibility of miracles: "Denying the possibility of miracles seems 
to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative Atheism." 

Miracles, however, are attacked not only on the ground 
of "possibility," but also of "credibility." The idea is that if 
miracles actually happened they could not be proved by human 
testimony, for they are absolutely incredible in view of "the 
firm and unalterable experience" which has established the laws 
of nature. That humanity's experience has been "firm and 
unalterable" in this respect is the very point at issue, and to 
affirm that it has been is simply unjustifiable dogmatism. 
Human testimony can establish and substantiate miracles, al- 
though such testimony must be very jealously received, weighed, 
and tested, and it must be assisted by an inherent fitness in the 
miracle itself, which shall commend it to the intellectual and 
the moral nature of man. That Jesus worked what purported 
to be miracles is supported by convincing human testimony. 
The belief in His miracles, indeed, is found to have been uni- 
versally accepted at a very early date, and the miracles them- 
selves are recorded in writings which follow so closely upon 
the events described, as practically to preclude the possibility 
of the growth of legends of miraculous cures and works, which 
grouped themselves around the unique personality of the Man 
Jesus. Sufficient time perhaps had elapsed, however, for the 
possible addition of legendary elements to the separate accounts 
of miracles which were really wrought by Christ. This fact 
should be remembered in a study of the miracles of Jesus. 



APPENDIX J 

THE METAPHYSICAL SONSHIP OF JESUS IN THE SYNOPTIC 

GOSPELS 

Let us take, for instance, the passage recently quoted : "No 
man knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any 
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal him." While this passage does not reveal "what 
idea Jesus entertained in regard to the genesis of His divine 
Sonship," it can be said that it appears "to imply that Jesus had 
shown no cognizance of any beginning in this relationship. It 
seems to be an innate property of His personality, seeing that 
He, as distinct from all others, holds for His own the claim 
to the sovereignty of the world, and the immediate knowledge 
of God, just as a son by right of birth becomes an heir, and 
by upbringing from childhood in undivided fellowship with the 
father enters into that spiritual relationship with the father, 
which is natural for the child." The passage, indeed, is very 
suggestive, and if the interpretation of Professor Bruce is jus- 
tifiable, namely, that the passage marks the Son as the revealer 
of the Father to those in the past, who did not know the his- 
torical Christ, an additional interest is given to the statement. 
"The claim is not meant to exclude from saving knowledge 
of God all who are ignorant of the historical Christ. It is 
meant rather to teach, that whoever has such knowledge, 
whether within Christendom or without, gets his illumination 
from the Son who perfectly knows the Father. Does not this 
point to a being of the Son independent of space and timef" 
("The Kingdom of God," p. 185.) 

Again the words of St. Mark 13:32 are thought-provok- 
ing. "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not 
the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." 
Most explicit testimony, however, is derived from an interview 
of Jesus with the Pharisees. Jesus asked them about the 

271 



272 Jesus' Idea 

meaning of the one hundredth and tenth Psalm. 1 

The interview is given by St. Matthew as follows : "While 
the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, say- 
ing, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say 
unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then 
doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine 
enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how 
is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word. 
(22:41-46, cf. St. Mk. 12:25-37; St. Lu. 20:41-44.) 

The significance of this colloquy is so well brought out by 
Dalman that we quote his words at length. "The aim — is the 
same — to awaken reflection in regard to the descent of the 
Messiah rather than to his dignity or exalted rank. There 
would indeed be nothing remarkable in the fact that a son 
should attain to a higher rank than his father, and for the 
Scribes it would not in the least be strange that the Messiah 
should be greater than David. On that point they did not, 
in fact, require any instruction. Justin Martyr says ("Dia- 
logue with Trypho," 33, 83) that the Jews of his time applied 
Psalm no to Hezekiah; so it appeared to them possible that 
David should call this king his Lord — An unbiased reading 
of the statement of Jesus cannot avoid the conclusion that the 
Messiah is in reality the Son of One more exalted than David, 
that is, the Son of God. And in that idea there was nothing 
extravagant. If Jesus was conscious of no beginning in his 
peculiar relationship to God, it must, of course, have had its 
genesis with His birth ; and, further, God must have so partici- 
pated in assigning that position, that the human factors 
concerned fell entirely into the background. The prophet 
Jeremiah, according to Jer. 1 :5, prided himself in his prenatal 
election by God to prophecy ; and Isa. 49 :5 says that the servant 
of the Lord was formed from the womb for his appointed 
function. Why should Jesus, conscious of being the servant 
of the Lord whom Isaiah predicted, not have had a similar 
consciousness in regard to Himself? Only it would be natural 

1 David was universally thought of as the author of this Psalm. 
The Psalm, in fact, was only composed in the time of David, and 
was addressed to him. This fact, however, does not affect in any 
way the impression which Jesus was seeking to give. 



Appendix 273 

that He, being 'the Son/ as distinguished from all servants, 
should presuppose, not merely selection and predestination, but 
also a creative act on the part of God, rendering Him what no 
one, who stands in a merely natural connection with man- 
kind, can ever by his own efforts become. This idea is in no 
way opposed to the other, that Jesus called Himself 'Son of 
Man.' For all the sublimity of which He was conscious 
in regard to His past, present, and future, never excludes the 
idea that for the present, by decree of the Divine Providence, 
He moves about among mankind, defenceless and weak. We 
do not find expressed the idea of God's becoming man, or of 
a twofold nature united in a single person; but there is at- 
tested the presence of One who appears in human weakness, 
who is a perfect Revealer of God and the future Ruler of 
the world, who has been bestowed upon the world by the 
supernatural power of God." ("Words of Jesus," pp. 285, 
6, 7.) 

Thus far, indeed, the Synoptic Gospels lead us into the 
realm of metaphysics. 



APPENDIX K 



THE LOGOS IDEA 



Why St. John should refer to Jesus as the "Word," and 
his intention in doing so, will become apparent in a moment. 1 

St. John used this term as the result of a continuous de- 
velopment of an idea. In Genesis, Creation is regarded as due 
to a command or word of God. In later poetical descriptions 
of creation, there is a quasi-personification of this idea: "By 
the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. 33:6; cf. 
107:2; 147:15, 18; 148:8). In Isaiah 5:10 there is a more 
poetic personification of the thought. Then by development, 
revelation, or the message of God to men, came to be called 
"the word of the Lord." Hence we read: "the word of the 
Lord came" (Micah 1:1); "the word which Isaiah saw" 
(Isa. 2:1; cf. Amos 1:1). In the Wisdom Literature of the 
Old Testament, there is a fuller development. The "word" 
becomes "an agent of God in the accomplishment of his gracious 
will and purpose" (Job. 28:12-28; Prov. 8:22-31). And 
passing from the Canonical Scriptures to the Apocryphal Wis- 
dom Literature, we find a still more pronounced development. 
( Ecclesiasticus 1:4-10; 24:3-12, 32:33.) We quote only an 
interesting passage from the Wisdom of Solomon: "For she 
is a breath of the power of God, and a clear effulgence of the 
glory of the Almighty; therefore can nothing defiled find 
entrance into her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting 
light, and an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an 
image of his goodness. And she, being one, hath power to do 
all things; and remaining in herself, reneweth all things, etc."; 
— "Who madeth all things by thy word" (9:1). This is also 
worthy of quotation: "Thine all-powerful word leaped from 

x The Greek term translated "word" is logos. This word in 
Classical Greek meant both a "word" and "reason"; in Biblical 
Greek, however, it is used chiefly in the sense of "word." 

274 



Appendix 275 

heaven out of the royal throne, a stern warrior, into the midst 
of the doomed land, bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned 
commandment." (Revised Version, 18:15, 16.) 

In the Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew 
Scriptures used in Our Lord's time, the same tendency is mani- 
fest. The word of Jehovah is personified, and represented as 
an intermediary between God and the world. Acts of God 
were attributed to the Divine Word. For instance, the Targums 
say: "They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God 
walking in the Garden" (Gen. 3:8.) This evidence leads us 
to the important conclusion expressed in the following words: 
"Thus Hebrew thought tended to represent God's self-manifes- 
tation as mediated by an agent, more or less conceived as per- 
sonal, and yet blending with the divine personality itself." Now 
with this tendency and with this usage of "the word," the writer 
of the Fourth Gospel as a Palestinian Jew would be familiar. 

There was, however, another interesting use of this ex- 
pression. The Greeks were busied with the problem as to how 
a transcendent God could come into relation with the world. 
To bridge this gulf, they made use of "ideas," and logos came 
to stand for the "reason" of Deity. This feature of the Greek 
Philosophy was borrowed by an Alexandrian Jew — Philo — 
who sought to harmonize the Old Testament Revelation with 
Greek Philosophy. "Philo adopted after others, the term 
logos, probably because it was familiar to both Judaism and 
Hellenism, to denote the total manifestation of divine powers 
and ideas in the universe. God is abstract being, without 
qualities, but from Him has proceeded the Logos, His rational 
thought, which first existed, as the ideal world in the divine 
mind, and then formed and inhabited the actual cosmos." 
Thus in Philo's thought, the "word" of the Old Testament 
was the chief idea, "through which God mediated His communi- 
cation with the world." It was the agent of creation and of 
the administration of the world, and was spoken of as "the 
first-born Son of God," and "the second God." In the per- 
sonification of this idea, however, Philo was not always un- 
equivocal or consistent. Now with this usage of the word 
"logos," St. John was also probably familiar. While some 
scholars maintain that he derived his doctrine from the Old 
Testament use of the expression, and others contend for the 



276 Jesus* Idea 

Philonic source, the most probable view is "that St. John 
adopted his Logos phraseology because in both Jewish and Gen- 
tile circles, the term was familiar. It was a leading term by 
which religious thought was striving to express the idea, though 
with much misconception, of an all-comprehensive, all-wise, and 
directly active revelation of God to the world" 

How readily, then, St. John would adopt it! The Apostle 
was an old man, and he had grown old in meditating upon the 
august mystery of the Christ. His Gospel is meditative through- 
out, not argumentative. Reflection upon Jesus' testimony 
to Himself, His Personality, and His teaching, had led St. John 
to a great conclusion. But how could he express his thought? 
The logos idea was at hand. Thoughtful years and spiritual 
insight availed themselves of the waiting word, and we have 
the triumphant strains of the opening verses of the Fourth 
Gospel. The declarations are not based, however, upon 
philosophic speculation, but upon reflection, which has worked 
up Jesus' own testimony, and at length states its conclusion. 
For St. John, Jesus was the preexistent Son of God who be- 
came incarnate: the Word who existed in the beginning, per- 
haps of time, or at least, of creation; who was in relationship 
with God, and who was God in His essential nature; who was 
the medium of creation, the author of life — physical, mental, 
spiritual — and the light or illumination of men, yet often un- 
comprehended because of the darkness of the human mind; 
who was borne witness to by John the Baptist; who eventually 
became man, and dwelt among us; who was rejected by his 
own — the Jews; who was, however, received by others, to 
whom He gave power to become sons of God. In this conclusion, 
spiritual insight and experience have largely concurred. 1 

1 St. John, however, from whatever source he derived his Logos 
doctrine, made his own distinctive contribution to it. If his doctrine 
was related to the Philonic doctrine, it yet bears distinctive marks. 
Professor W. F. Adeny, in the Biblical World for July, 1905, thus 
summarizes them: "In particular there are four, viz.: (1) the sense 
of word attached to the term Logos,' rather than that of reason; 
(2) the personality of the Logos; (3) his incarnation; (4) his 
identifications when incarnate with the Jewish Messiah." ("The Re- 
lation of New Testament Theology to Alexandrian Thought.") Con- 
sult also Stevens' "N. T. Theology," pp. 576-585, and Articles 
"Logos" and "Philo" in Hastings' Bible Dictionary; also Sanday's 
"Criticism of the Fourth Gospel," Lecture 6, pp. 185-205. 



APPENDIX L 



THE ACCOUNTS OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH 

A resume of the story may not be amiss. According to St. 
Matthew, a virgin, Mary by name, who was espoused to Joseph, 
was (before they were wedded) found to be with child by 
the Holy Ghost. Joseph, being a strict follower of the law, 
and yet unwilling to see Mary suffer the penalty of the law, 
determined to put her away privately. An angel of the Lord, 
however, appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, thou 
son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for 
that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and she 
shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus : for 
he shall save his people from their sins." x 

Joseph obeys the angel's command, but does not enter into 
marital relations with his wife until she had brought forth 
her first-born son. 

The birth of the Child took place in Bethlehem of Judea 
in the days of Herod. Then Wise Men from the East, led 

1 The Evangelist finds in this event the fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. 
This use of the passage, however, must be looked upon leniently. 
The passage itself did not and cannot refer to a Virgin Birth. The 
word translated "virgin" really means "young woman." Dalman 
is again helpful: "The Jewish common people never expected the 
Messiah to be born of a Virgin ; and no trace is to be found among 
the Jews of any Messianic application of Isaiah's words (7:14) 
concerning the virgin's son, from which by any possibility — as some 
have maintained — the whole account of the miraculous birth of 
Jesus could have derived its origin." ("Words of Jesus," p. 276.) 
Apropos of the New Testament use of this and similar Old Testa- 
ment passages, the words of the late Professor A. B. Davidson 
are suggestive : "In general, it was more the actual life of Christ 
that suggested to New Testament writers the application to Him of 
Old Testament passages, than a prevalent method of interpreting 
the passages. They saw in His life the full religious meaning of 
the passages, and the question of their original sense or application 
did not occur to them." 

277 



278 Jesus 1 Idea 

by a star, came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is he that is born 
King of the Jews?" Herod, learning of their inquiry, assembled 
the chief priests and the scribes, and asked where the Messiah 
was to be born. In consonance with Micah 5:1, 2, they pointed 
to Bethlehem of Judea. Then, after inquiring of the Magi 
as to the time of the star's appearance, Herod sends them away 
to search for the Child and urges that they bring him word 
again. Led by the star, they followed until it stood over the 
house where the young Child and His Mother were. Enter- 
ing, they make obeisance to the Babe, and present gifts of gold, 
frankincense, and myrrh. They are then warned in a dream 
not to return to Herod, and they set out for their country by 
another route. Joseph is also warned by an angel to take the 
Child and His Mother, and to flee into Egypt to escape from 
Herod. There they remain until Herod's death, and thus 
fulfil the prophecy of Hosea 11 :i. Herod, however, greatly 
angered, decrees the murder of all male children of two years 
of age and under in Bethlehem, and its borders. When Herod 
was dead, however, Joseph was commanded by an angel to 
return from Egypt. Hearing that Archelaus, Herod's son, 
was reigning, Joseph was fearful, and was directed by God in 
a dream to turn to Nazareth of Galilee. (St. Mt. 1 : 18-25 ; 2.) 
St. Luke's account of the birth of Jesus, and its attendant 
circumstances, is more detailed. He begins with an appearance 
of the angel Gabriel to the old priest, Zacharias, as he was 
engaged in the Temple, and the announcement that his aged 
wife — the barren Elizabeth — would become the joyful mother 
of a son, who should, in the spirit and power of Elijah, prepare 
the people for the Lord's coming. Doubting the news, and 
asking its corroboration, Zacharias is stricken with dumbness. 
His wife conceives, however, and goes into retirement. Then 
in the sixth month, Gabriel visits Mary, the virgin espoused 
to Joseph, and announces that she is to bear a son: "He shall 
be called great, and shall be called the son of the Highest: 
and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father 
David : and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever ; and 
of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Here in the very 
forefront again is the idea of the Kingdom of God.) Troubled 
because she was unmarried, she hears: "The Holy Ghost shall 
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 



Appendix 279 

thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God." Mary's attention is also di- 
rected to the condition of her cousin Elizabeth. She at once 
seeks Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea, and is greeted with 
the words: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is 
the fruit of thy womb," while the unborn John leaped in his 
mother's womb. Mary in reply utters the Magnificat — a chant 
of praise, modeled probably upon Hannah's song in I Sam. 2, 
iff. After three months, Mary returns to her home, and Eliza- 
beth gives birth to a son. On the eighth day the child is cir- 
cumcised, and a name is given under peculiar circumstances. 
Zacharias' speech is restored, and he utters the hymn of praise 
called the Benedictus. The narrative concerning John then 
concludes with the statement: "The child grew, and waxed 
strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shew- 
ing unto Israel." 

The birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is then accounted for by 
a decree of Augustus Caesar which called for a census of the 
Empire, and which was first made when Cyrenius was governor 
of Syria. This compelled Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem, 
the city of David, inasmuch as Joseph was a descendant of 
David. There Jesus was born in a stable because there was 
no room in the inn. The joyful news of the birth was an- 
nounced by an angel to some shepherds in an adjacent field, 
and they heard the celestial hosts chanting praises to God. 
The shepherds immediately seek and find the Child, and make 
known their strange experience. All wonder, "but Mary kept 
all these things, and pondered them in her heart." After eight 
days the Child was circumcised, and the name Jesus was con- 
ferred. When the forty days of Purification had passed, Jesus 
was presented in the Temple, and the prescribed offering was 
made. There an aged and devout Jew, Simeon by name, and 
Anna, a prophetess, moved by the Holy Ghost, recognized in 
Jesus the fulfilment of their expectations. Then the parents 
return to their own city, Nazareth, where the child grew, and 
"waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of 
God was upon him." (St. Lu. 1:5-2:40.) 

The reader will have noticed that these are independent, 
yet not inconsistent accounts. 



APPENDIX M 



SOME EXPLANATIONS OF THE STORY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH 

The objectors to the Biblical account of the Virgin Birth, 
however, usually represent the story as a legendary development, 
based in all probability upon some germ of truth or idea found 
in the genuine Gospel teaching. They say, for instance, that 
the Messiah was popularly supposed to be the Son or descend- 
ant of David, hence by reasoning, Bethlehem, the city of David, 
should be the Messiah's birthplace. Thus Bethlehem came to 
be the birthplace of Jesus. Again, Jesus was spoken of as the 
Son of God in an ethical sense. By development, this was 
transformed into a metaphysical sense: Jesus became Divine. 
Then as a Divine Being, of course He preexisted; and if pre- 
existent, when He entered into human life, He must be born 
of a Virgin. Thus with great ingenuity and plausibility the 
fact of the Virgin Birth is assaulted, and nothing is left but 
the noble manhood of Jesus; all but this is development and 
legend. A sufficient answer to this is that sufficient time for 
this development did not elapse between the death of Jesus and 
the appearance of these two Gospels — A. D. 60-80 — especially 
when we remember that the accounts are based upon earlier 
narratives or tradition. This is even better seen when we 
notice how slowly the Christian consciousness grasped the sig- 
nificance of the Virgin Birth. This is apparent in the writings 
of the Ante Nicene Fathers. Spiritual insight, however, as 
well as radical criticism, must decide the issue, and its verdict 
is in favor of the Christian view. 

Yet other objectors say that the idea of a Virgin Birth was 
not a feature of Jewish belief, but was borrowed from the 
Pagan World. There the origin of the ideas and the events, 
which have embellished the Christ tradition, is found. Numer- 
ous instances of belief in Divine generations and Virgin Births 
are cited. The star in St. Matthew's account is explained in 

280 



Appendix 281 

accordance with pagan superstition; the origin of the visit of 
the Wise Men is found in the journey of homage made by the 
Parthian King, Tiridates, with Magi in his train, to the Em- 
peror Nero; the story of the Massacre of the Innocents, and 
its motive, are found in the narrative of Marathus concerning 
the birth of Augustus (Suet. Aug. 94) ; while the flight into 
Egypt is referred to mythological ideas. Thus St. Matthew's 
narrative is summarily disposed of, while his loose quotations 
from the Old Testament are designed as Jewish supports of 
Gentile Fables. 

St. Luke's account is also said to be primarily the attempt 
of Jewish Christians to glorify the Infancy and the Childhood 
of Jesus by poetic fancies, which did not, however, at first esteem 
him the child of a Virgin Birth. Verses 34ft to this effect are 
said to have been added by some redactor who sought to har- 
monize Luke's account with that of Matthew, if possible. 
Then the features of the Presentation — the action of Simeon 
and Anna — are done away with; also the census of Cyrenius; 
also the story of the Shepherds. The words of the angels' song, 
indeed, are suggested by some Asiatic proclamations in regard 
to the birth of Augustus Caesar; while Mary's journey to 
Elizabeth and Jesus' visit to the Temple are disposed of in a 
similar manner. All, in fact, become pious legends. That many 
of the facts brought forward by these objectors are true, every 
candid student will admit. His conclusion from the facts, how- 
ever, will be different. That which seems, indeed, to the critic 
to disprove the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and its attendant cir- 
cumstances, will to spiritual insight be the foregleams of eternal 
truths vouchsafed to a humanity in which Deity has ever been 
profoundly interested. 1 

*For able and elaborate statements of the views cited above, let 
the reader consult the Articles "Nativity," by Usener, and "Mary," 
by Schmiedel, in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and the little brochure, 
"The Birth of Jesus Christ," by Wilhelm Soltau, and also "The 
Virgin Birth of Christ," by Lobstein. The following objections to 
the story of the Virgin Birth have also been carefully considered 
by the writer, and although they appear formidable, and no doubt 
are convincing to many against the fact, he has been able to meet 
them, at least, to his own satisfaction. The first two chapters of 
St. Matthew and of St. Luke do not form part of the main body 
of the narrative, but are a later addition. The narratives are them- 
selves contradictory and inconsistent in the following particulars : 



282 Jesus* Idea 

(a) the genealogies record a different number of generations, and 
agree in only two names, (b) the scene of the Annunciation in St. 
Luke is unlike that in St. Matthew; (c) there is a double indication 
as to the abode of the parents; (d) the visit of the Magi, and the 
Flight into Egypt cannot be fitted into St. Luke's narrative either 
before or after the Presentation in the Temple. The narratives, 
too, when taken separately, "raise insuperable difficulties," some 
features even pointing to a mythical origin: the star of the Magi; 
the enrolment under Cyrenius ; the origin of Matthew's story in 
an evident desire to give prophecy a literal fulfilment; the inter- 
vention of angels; the failure of contemporaneous writers to men- 
tion the massacre of the Innocents. St. Luke 2 150 is inexplicable 
if Mary knew of the supernatural birth ; Mary's general attitude is 
also inexplicable (St. Mk. 3:20, 21). Passing from the Synoptic 
Gospels, there is no unequivocal reference to the Virgin Birth in the 
New Testament. Paul ignores the doctrine, neither using it as a 
proof of the sinlessness of Christ, nor of His Divinity. Twice, in 
fact, he seems to exclude the idea. (Rom. 1 13; Gal. 4:4.) St. Peter, 
in Acts 2:30, coincides with Paul. (See also Acts 13:23.) The 
silence of the Fourth Gospel concerning the Virgin Birth shows that 
the author "had found in the Logos theory a deeper explanation, 
and to his mind a better one, of the Divinity of Christ." The reader 
is referred to the able defenses of the Virgin Birth by the late 
Doctor James Orr and the Rev. Louis W. Sweet, entitled respec- 
tively, "The Virgin Birth of Christ" and "The Birth and Infancy 
of Jesus Christ." 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 396 926 5 



